Maintenance decisions involve assessing the financial capacity of both spouses, the needs of dependents, and the evidence supporting claims of neglect or financial ability.

ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

Since the issue involved in these criminal revision cases is one and the same, they are being heard together and are being decided by way of this common order.

2. Since the parties in both cases are one and the same, they are hereinafter referred to as in M.C.No.262 of 2022.

3. Crl.R.C.No.662 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner - wife aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2023 passed in M.C.No.262 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

4. Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2024 is filed by the respondent - husband aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2023 passed in M.C.No.262 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, wife of the respondent, filed M.C.No.262 of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/-, alleging that after their marriage on 30.04.2006, the respondent and his family members subjected her to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry and finally drove her out of the matrimonial home on 15.11.2019. She stated that the respondent, who is earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month as an RTA agent and also receiving house rent, neglected to maintain her, though she has no means for her livelihood. The respondent, while admitting the marriage, denied the allegations and contended that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home without any valid reason, leaving the children in his custody, and that he is unemployed and earning only Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000 per month by doing small business. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged income of the respondent but established that she was unable to maintain herself and that the respondent, being her husband, neglected to maintain her. Taking into account the respondent’s responsibilities towards his aged mother and three children, the trial Court partly allowed the petition and directed him to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the parties filed the present criminal revision cases, respectively.

6. Heard Sri Mohd. Adan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - wife as well as Sri Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -husband in both the criminal revision cases.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner–wife submitted that the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and facts of the case and passed an order contrary to law and that the petitioner had clearly established that the respondent neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means, and that no evidence was adduced by the respondent to disprove her case. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the petitioner and medical records properly and ignored the fact that the respondent remained ex parte earlier and later failed to enter the witness box. He contended that the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month granted by the trial Court was meagre and unrealistic, as no woman can maintain herself in Hyderabad city with such a small amount. He therefore prayed that the order of the trial Court be set aside and a reasonable monthly maintenance of at least Rs.15,000/- be awarded to the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent– husband submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the admissions made by the petition