IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SRINIVAS, J.
Lenka Bhaskara Rao – Petitioner
Versus
Lenka Madhavi Vizianagaram – Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 1650 of 2016
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Maintenance - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 397, 401 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding maintenance obligations of a husband, emphasizing the need for support to a wife and child, and upheld the trial court's decision while slightly reducing the maintenance amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a husband, challenged a trial court's order granting maintenance to his wife and child, citing allegations of desertion and financial hardship, while the wife claimed harassment and lack of support.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove his claims of desertion and that he had a legal obligation to maintain his wife and child, affirming the trial court's decision with a minor adjustment to the maintenance amount.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in granting maintenance to the wife and child despite the husband's claims of desertion and financial constraints.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the husband has a duty to maintain his wife and child, and the evidence did not support his claims of desertion, thus justifying the maintenance order.
Result: The revision petition is partly allowed, reducing the wife's maintenance to Rs. 10,000 and affirming the child's maintenance at Rs. 8,000.
ORDER :
1. Assailing the order dated 25.04.2016 in M.C. No. 15 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli, the petitioner/respondent/ husband filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the original petition as pleaded by the respondents/wife and son are that:
(i) The marriage of 1st respondent and revision petitioner was solemnized on 19.08.2010at Kshatriya Kalyana Mandapam, Vizianagaram as per Hindu caste customs and rites. On the demand, the parents of the 1st respondent presented an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry, four tulas of gold by way of ornaments and Rs.1,00,000/- worth of household articles. The marriage was consummated. The petitioner/husband suspected her fidelity and during her 4th month pregnancy, he got her aborted stating that he was not responsible for her pregnancy, due to which she suffered with mental agony. He used to behave in a sadistic manner and harassed her both physically and mentally. On 13.12.2011, she gave birth to 2nd respondent. Even then the petitioner did not change his attitude. The petitioner as well his parents used to beat her with a demand of divorce, if she failed to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and to execute two acres of land in his favour by her parents. Then the petitioner necked out her from the matrimonial house and threatened with dire consequences. A case under Section 498(A) of IPC was registered vide Cr. No. 94 of 2014 against the petitioner and his family members on the report of 1st respondent.
(ii) Petitioner as Inspector of Police, Urban Visakhapatnam (Intelligence) getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- besides having both movable and immovable properties at Narasannapeta also having own house worth of Rs.60,00,000/-. He always neglected to maintain her; she has no source of income; unable to maintain herself and 2nd respondent. Thereby, the petitioner/husband is bound to maintain her and their son by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as M.C. No. 15 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli.
4. The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the 1st respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that:
(i) The marriage expenses were shared jointly as per their agreement. The 1st respondent is very adamant and she never adjusted with him. She used to pick up quarrels with him and also threaten that she would implicate him and his family members in false cases. She used to insist him to put up separate residence from his parents and caused mental harassment. She used to talk over phone with somebody for hours together. After birth of 2nd respondent, even he requested her to join with him, she refused. Even he obliged her demand, she never change her attitude. On 28.07.2012, she went to parental house with all her belongings including gold articles and did not return. He came to know that she joined in B.Ed. course and doing part time job. Then her family members came to his house and bet him indiscriminately and foisted a false case against him. She herself withdrawn from his conjugal society without any valid reason.
(ii) The 1st respondent working as faculty and getting considerable amount besides having lands at Kothakota Village of Srikakulam District and Cheepurupalli and getting sufficient income of Rs.10,00,000/- per annum and thus she is able to maintain herself. Thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.
5. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Cheepurupalli, vide order dated 25.04.2016, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the 1st respondent/wife and Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent/son from the date of filing of the petition i.e.
AI
A husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife and child, and claims of desertion must be substantiated to deny such maintenance.
A divorced woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as per Explanation (b) to the section, which includes divorced women as wives.
A wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband if she is unable to maintain herself and the husband has sufficient means to provide maintenance.
Maintenance decisions involve assessing the financial capacity of both spouses, the needs of dependents, and the evidence supporting claims of neglect or financial ability.
Point of law - As per Section, 125 of Cr.P.C, only minor child is entitled to get maintenance amount. Therefore, regarding second respondent, the revision petitioner need not to pay maintenance amoun....
: FIXATION OF MONTHLY MAINTENANCE - First respondent as well as the revision petitioner are financially sound- Educational expenses of the respondents 2 and 3, status of the parties and the present e....
A divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of the divorce circumstances, affirming the husband's financial responsibility.
The obligation of a spouse to provide maintenance, as determined by the spouse's income and ability to maintain the other spouse, is a key legal principle established in this judgment.
The court emphasized that maintenance amounts must match the living standards and financial capabilities of both parties, rejecting the husband's claim of poverty due to his affluent background.
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.