A husband must provide reasonable maintenance to his wife and children based on his income, and courts can modify maintenance orders if they find them unreasonable.

ORDER :

(V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.)

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the husband assailing the order dated 21.12.2018 of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in F.C.O.P.No.53 of 2017.

2. Heard arguments of Ms. Priyanvita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vedula Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Parties to these proceedings are Hindus. The marriage of the revision petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 08.08.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs. During their wedlock, they were blessed with two children and both are minors, and they are respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. Disputes arose between the spouses and that resulted in separation, and they have been living separately. Alleging matrimonial cruelty, the wife filed a written information which was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.8 of 2017 at Mahila Police Station, Tirupati evidenced by a copy of the F.I.R. as per Ex.A.2 and its equivalent is Ex.B.2. The married woman living with her two minor children filed F.C.O.P.No.53 of 2017 claiming a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.15,000/-to each of the children and thus a total claim of Rs.45,000/- per month was prayed. In addition to that, they also prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- per year for the educational expenses of the minor children. The husband filed his counter and resisted the claim.

4. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 4 testified and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the revision petitioner/husband, he alone testified as RW.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.

5. After duly considering the evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial Court allowed the petition in the following terms:

“21. In the result, the petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 towards maintenance from the date of petition till petitioners 2 and 3 attain age of majority and during the life time of 1st petitioner. The interim maintenance awarded and paid by the respondent shall be deducted from the amount payable to them. The respondent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3 every year towards their educational expenses, on or before 1st June. The respondent is further directed to deposit the maintenance amount in the bank account of 1st petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month and intimate the same to 1st petitioner through S.M.S.”

6. Dissatisfied with the said order, the husband preferred this revision.

7. It is argued that the monthly salary of the revision petitioner has been Rs.19,000/-. The learned trial Court granted a total amount of Rs.13,000/- towards monthly maintenance which is unreasonable. The trial Court ought not to have granted more than Rs.3,000/- for each of the claimants towards monthly maintenance. That the trial Court having disbelieved Exs.A.4 and A.5 ought not to have granted Rs.30,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the minor children.

8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 urges that it was only after duly considering the material on record the learned trial Court granted reasonable amounts of maintenance and that the wife and minor children have no other source of income and what was ordered by the Court below being reasonable no interference is required in this revision.

9. The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether in the light of the facts and circumstances established during enquiry before the Court below the order impugned can be stated to be irregular or illegal requiring interference?

POINT:

10. It is undisputed that the revision petitioner is a District Manager in N.T.R. Vaidyasala, Government Sarvajana Hospital, Anantapuram. In the Court below the claimants alleged tha