IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Gudivada Seshagiri Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Gudiavada Ashalatha - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1947 Of 2010 & Criminal Revision Case No.38 Of 2011
Decided On : 20-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 125, 397, 401 – Criminal Revision Case – Bundle allegation – Criminal Revision Case is filed on behalf of petitioner, who is respondent in M.C. i.e., husband, under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to revise order made in M.C, on file of Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge – Held, Court hold that petitioner in maintenance case before trial Court is able to prove that respondent neglected to maintain her in spite of fact that he has sufficient means to maintain her and that she is unable to maintain herself – Court hold that contention of the Revision Petitioner in Criminal Revision Case to defeat claim of petitioner is not at all tenable and Revision Petitioner in Criminal Revision Case is entitled to maintenance to that of per month as against per month – Criminal Revision dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The Criminal Revision Case No.1947 of 2010 is filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.178 of 2004 i.e., the husband, under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short) with a prayer to revise the order made in M.C.No.178 of 2004, dated 06.09.2010, on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The Criminal Revision Case No.38 of 2011 is filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, who is the petitioner in M.C.No.178 of 2004, dated 06.09.2010, on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, to modify the order so as to grant the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month instead of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month as awarded by the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.1947 of 2010 is the husband of the 1st respondent therein and the petitioner in Criminal Revision Case No.38 of 2011 is the wife of the second respondent therein.
4. The petitioner in M.C.No.178 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, filed the case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month against the respondent and the brief averments before the trial Court according to the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are as follows :
(i) Petitioner stated that her marriage with respondent was performed on 27.05.1999 according to the Christian Rites and customs at Dondapadu village in the house of respondent by Pastor K.J. Jaswanth Rao. She further stated that her engagement was performed on 25.03.1999 and her parents agreed to pay Rs.2 lakhs cash, gold ring, an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Adapaducyhu Katnam and the house site to an extent of two and half cents situated at Mangalagiri and a Lime Garden to an extent of Ac.0-30 cents situated at Chiluvuru village. She further stated that her marriage was fixed at 10-30 AM but her parents failed to give Adapaduchu Katnam of Rs.10,000/- and that respondent?s mother took away Mangalasutram and kept under her control. Then her parents and relatives rushed to Vijayawada and brought the said amount and paid the same to the mother of respondent and later her marriage was performed at 5.15 PM instead of 10.30 AM. Immediately after the marriage the petitioner joined her in-laws and stayed there till 14.06.1999 and then both petitioner and respondent reached DIGBOI on 18.06.1999. Both of them stayed there in a guest house for six days. The respondent used to come in the late hours and used to ill-treat her, and he was addicted to all vices like drinking, gambling and debauchery. She further stated that he was not allowing her to go outside. He abused her in filthy language and also beat her on 27.06.1999. On 10.07.1999 her mother and brother went to Digboi and gave household articles worth of Rs.10,000/-. At that time respondent beat her and even on 12.07.1999 on the eve of birthday of petitioner also the respondent beat her and also totally neglected her. The respondent told her that he used to send Rs.23,500/- to his parents and his maternal aunt and uncle and kept Rs.1,500/- with him from his salary. The respondent also informed her that he gave Rs.3 lakhs to his mother and Rs.2 lakhs to his maternal aunt, after marriage he did not send any amount to them and that they developed grudge against the petitioner. Then on the instigation of mother and maternal aunt by phone, the respondent beat, kicked her with his legs and her stomach and also threatened her that he would see her end. The petitioner gave telegram to her parents on 28.10.1999 and that her father came and took her away on 31.10.1999. They also gave a complaint to the officials of I.O.C. Even after returning to their place her father tried for mediation at Digboi, but it was n
SupremeToday
The main legal point established is that a wife is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.
The court upheld the Family Court's maintenance order, affirming the husband's legal obligation to support his wife and children despite claims of the wife's financial independence.
The right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be denied based on a wife's qualifications or potential earnings, especially when she has sacrificed her career for matrimonial duties.
The husband has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and claims of insufficient income must be substantiated with credible evidence.
The determination of maintenance amount under Section 125 Cr. P. C. depends on the financial capacity of the husband, the standard of living of the wife, and the statutory guidance provided by the Hi....
The quantum of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. depends on various factors, including the financial status of the husband, the standard of living of the wife, and the cost of li....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.