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 :
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.