IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that willful default in maintenance payments justifies striking off a defense in family law proceedings.

ORDER :

V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.

1. Parties to the case are Mohammedans. The revision petitioner preferred this revision under sections 397 and 401 CrPC impugning the order dated 04.03.2021 of the learned Family Judge - cum - XII Additional District Judge, Guntur in FCOP.No.114 of 2017 which directed him to pay monthly allowance of maintenance to his wife and two minor children.

2. Respondent No.1 is the wife. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children. Respondent No.4 is the State.

3. Sri Phani Teja, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao Modukuri, the learned counsel for respondents argued their respective contentions and cited rulings in support of their respective contentions. To appreciate the rival submissions, the following aspects are to be noticed.

4. The marriage between the man and the woman was solemnized on 07.12.2009 according to Mohammedan law and principles. During their wed lock, they were blessed with two children who are now attending their school education. The family went along till the year 2017 and it was in that year, the woman and her two minor children filed a petition under section 125 CrPC praying the learned Family Judge to grant a monthly allowance of Rs.15,000 to each of them to sustain themselves. The husband made his due appearance and filed his counter.

5. In that petition, it is stated that the woman lost her father ten years earlier to her marriage and she has her mother with her. The man married her. On his demand cash and gold were paid at the time of marriage and the marital life was happy for some time. It was thereafter found that concealing his earlier marriage with another woman and the fact that the same has been subsisting by then. There were persistent demands from the husband for more money. The wife had no source of earnings and was dependent on her mother and could not satisfy the demands of the husband. During passage of time, husband developed the vices and has been coming in a drunken state causing mental and physical violence. Reconciliation efforts through elders did not bring any remorse in the husband. It was in the year 2014, she and her minor children were necked out by the man and till the filing of the claim for maintenance she was depended on her mother who now has become old and could not maintain her. Finding no source of earning and being unable to maintain themselves, the claim for maintenance was filed. It is stated that the man is engaged in real-estate and finance business earning Rs.60,000 per month and owns a house and there has been serious neglect and refusal on his part in maintaining the family.

6. In her counter, the husband refuted these allegations and stated that the woman is adamant and she works in MeeSeva during day time and during the remaining period, she works as a nurse in a hospital and earns Rs.15,000 per month. She had no right to claim maintenance as per the law. Coming to his own income and assets, he stated that all that is stated in the petition is false and because of his health condition, he was not permitted to do any work, and he is unable to maintain his wife and children. His wife left him voluntarily. He further stated that earlier to marrying this woman, he disclosed them that he was already a married man, and it is because of that the mother of the woman demanded lot of money and gold articles and he gave them. The wife used to leave his house quite often and used to reach home late hours and, on some occasions, failed to come to home for one or two days. When he questioned her, he was kept in a room by her and her mother, and they used to beat him. He has his own old mother who was deserted by his father, and he has to look after her. He sought dismissal of the petition.

7. Learned family judge directed both parties to file their affidavits of assets and liabilities. For wife and children, it was filed but the man did not file any such affidavit.

8. At the enquiry, the wife alone testified as PW.1 and exhibi