SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, J.
Palaparthi Shebha and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.1115 of 2023
Decided on 16.7.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Arrabolu Sai Naveen
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (AP), Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

IMPORTANT POINT
Monthly maintenance is to be granted to wife and child from date of petition.

Headnote:

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125(2) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 144(2)]—Monthly maintenance—Grant of—Starting date of payment—Principle concerning maintenance of a minor child and a legally wedded wife indicate legal obligation on a husband to maintain them—When spouse and minor child were not receiving such allowances from husband, they are entitled to seek relief by moving appropriate petition before court and need of their maintenance as on date of petition is what has to be addressed by court—When once it found that wife and child are unable to maintain themselves and husband is capable of maintaining himself and having sufficient means, refused or neglected to pay maintenance, ordering payment of maintenance from date of petition filed is what normally sounds correct—Order of Magistrate is in accordance with law and its interference in appeal by Sessions Judge is incorrect—Order of Magistrate restored.(Paras 14 and 15)

Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed.

ORDER

This criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC impugns the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam on 10.08.2023 in Crl.A.No.97 of 2021. A married woman and her minor child are the revision petitioners herein. Respondent No.2 is the husband of 1st petitioner and father of 2nd petitioner. Respondent No.1 is State.

2. DVC.No.22 of 2018 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is under section 12 seeking reliefs under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The married woman and her minor child filed such application as against R2 herein and six others.

3. During the pendency of the said DVC, the aggrieved woman and her child filed Crl.M.P.No.1110 of 2019 under section 23 of the Act, 2005 seeking various interim measures. After due enquiry, by an order dated 20.08.2019, the learned trial court passed the order in the following terms: -

“a. The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- P.M respectively to the 1st and 2nd petitioner towards monthly maintenance as interim from the date of filing of petition i.e., 24.04.2019, till the disposal of the main case. The 1st respondent is also directed to pay arrears of maintenance amount within one month. The payment must be on or before 10th of every month. Otherwise, the petitioner is at liberty to take legal steps to recover the amount from 1st respondent.

b. The rest of the prayer claimed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.”

4. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent/ husband preferred Crl.A.No.97 of 2021 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. After due hearing, by an order dated 10.08.2023, it partly allowed the appeal and the operative portion of the order reads as below: -

“As a result, the appeal is allowed in part confirming the interim maintenance as ordered by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam @ Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively to the Respondents 1 and 2 herein but the same is ordered be paid from 01.04.2022 instead of the date of the petition i.e., 24.04.2019.”

5. Thus, the learned appellate court agreed with the decision of the learned trial court with reference to the legal need and necessity on part of the husband in maintaining his wife and minor child and also affirmed the quantum of monthly maintenance. However, the learned appellate court modified the trial court’s order only with reference to the date from which the awarded maintenance amounts were to be paid. Learned trial court granted interim maintenance from the date of application i.e., on 24.04.2019. Whereas the appellate court set aside that part of the order and directed the interim maintenance to be paid from 01.04.2022.

6. Aggrieved by that modification, the woman and the child preferred this revision.

7. Heard Sri A.Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submits that the learned appellate court modified the trial court’s order on facts which were never part of the record and the modification is not inconsonance with the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324. The error requires immediate correction as the effect of the erroneous order would make the revision petitioners to lose Rs.9,90,000/-. Therefore, in this revision, this court may have to interfere.

9. Learned counsel for respondents submits that it is only a matter of interim measure that was granted and considering the true facts, the learned appellate court modified the order of the learned trial court and the modification ordered by the appellate court cannot be considered as causing any injustice especially when the main DVC is still pending and therefore the revision powers of this court may not be exercised in this case and the revision may be dismissed.

10. The poi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top