Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
Ragimani Gangadhar – Appellant
Versus
Ragimani Padmavathi & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 393 of 2022
Decided On : 08-09-2022
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - SECTION 18 - MAINTENANCE - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - WIFE - ENTITLEMENT - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS - DISCLOSURE OF PREVIOUS MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS - ADJUSTMENT OR SET-OFF OF MAINTENANCE AWARDED - REDUCTION OF INTERIM MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Husband challenged the order of the lower court confirming the interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month granted to the wife under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DVC Act). The husband argued that the wife had suppressed the fact that she had already been granted interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month by the High Court in a separate maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the wife was not required to disclose the previous maintenance proceeding in the DVC case as it was already brought to the notice of the lower court. However, the court reduced the interim maintenance to Rs. 2,000/- per month considering the husband's financial circumstances and the fact that he was already paying Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance in the other proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife was required to disclose the previous maintenance proceeding in the DVC case. 2. Whether the husband was liable to pay maintenance under both the DVC Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Whether the interim maintenance granted to the wife was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife was not required to disclose the previous maintenance proceeding in the DVC case as it was already brought to the notice of the lower court. 2. The court held that the husband was not liable to pay maintenance under both the DVC Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. However, the court directed that the maintenance awarded in the previous proceeding should be taken into account while determining the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding. 3. The court held that the interim maintenance granted to the wife was excessive and reduced it to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition in part and reduced the interim maintenance granted to the wife from Rs. 4,000/- per month to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
JUDGMENT
K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.4.2021 passed in Crl.A. No. 211 of 2017 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and where under the interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month granted in favour of the wife who is 1st respondent herein in I.A. No. 66 of 2017 in DVC No. 52 of 2016 on 11.8.2017 by the learned Magistrate is confirmed by dismissing the appeal of the husband.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after are referred to as husband and wife for the petitioner and 1st respondent respectively.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows;
Originally the wife filed a complaint against the husband under Sections 23 and 28 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DVC Act') in DVC No. 52 of 2016 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool. During pendency of the said case the wife filed I.A. No. 66 of 2016 for grant of monthly interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-. The learned Magistrate partly allowed the same and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month.
4. Against the said order, the husband filed Crl.A. No. 211 of 2017 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal by confirming the interim maintenance granted by the trial Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material on record.
6. There is no dispute that the parties are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnised on 20.4.2014. After the marriage, both of them led marital life for some time and from 20.7.2014 they are living separate from each other due to some disputes and differences arose between them. On the report given by the wife, the husband and his relatives were also prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- each.
7. Learned counsel for the husband contended that in the complaint filed by the wife she did not reveal the information about the case filed by her in F.C.M.C. No. 17 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court claiming maintenance and the same was dismissed without awarding any maintenance. However, against the said order, the wife filed Revision in Crl.R.C. No. 3322 of 2016 and moved Crl.R.C.M.P. No. 5192 of 2016 before the common High Court and the said Crl.R.C.M.P. was partly allowed on 13.12.2016 by giving interim direction to the extent that the husband shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- in favour of respondent. It is alleged that suppressing that part of the maintenance granted in her favour, she resorted in filing DVC Case claiming maintenance of Rs. 25,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Judgment of this High Court in Mohammed Yaseen Baba Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 419 and contended that the husband cannot be made liable to pay maintenance awarded in each of the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and under DVC Act etc.,
9. This Court has gone through the said judgment. It did not hold that simultaneous proceedings under different enactments cannot be made. In fixing quantum of maintenance, it would be relevant in bringing to notice of the Court about filing of parallel proceedings for maintenance.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, it is held,
'Directions on overlapping jurisdictions: It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, th
A wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes, but she is under a legal obligation to disclose any previous maintenance proceedings in subsequent proceedings for maintenance. The c....
Dual maintenance claims are permissible under different statutes, but the applicant must disclose previous orders and justify the need based on changing circumstances for additional relief.
A wife must establish a prima facie case of domestic violence to be entitled to interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, considering both parties' financial statuses.
The quantum of maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be fair and reasonable, taking into account the standard of living of the parties involved.
Interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act is a provisional measure to prevent financial hardship, based on a broad assessment of parties' status, and is not a final determination of entitle....
The court emphasized that the interim maintenance should be adequate, fair, and reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living of the aggrieved person. The court also highlighted the presumpt....
Point of Law : Even though the proceedings under the D.V. Act may be independent proceeding, the Magistrate cannot ignore the maintenance awarded in any other legal proceedings, while determining whe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
