Providing maintenance requires proof of the wife's inability to support herself; unsubstantiated claims do not merit legal relief.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri M.D.Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2021, dated 14.02.2025, wherein, the said petition was allowed in part directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.12,000/- to the respondent herein on or before 5^th of every succeeding month from the date of filing of the petition excluding the payment of interim maintenance amount paid if any to the respondent. The petitioner herein was further directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in three equal instalments within three months from the date of order.

3. The events leading to the filing of Maintenance Case are that the petitioner and respondent were married on 09.08.2020 at Karimnagar Town as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. In addition, there was pressure on the respondent to purchase Flat at Hyderabad in the name of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was addicted to alcohol used to return home at late hours and subjected the respondent to physical and mental cruelty under the effect of physical intoxication. In this context, disputes arose leading to filing of Crime No.78 of 2021 on the file of W.P.S, Karimnagar for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 506 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent is a helpless lady dependent upon her parents and incurring Rs.20,000/- per month for her food, clothes, medicines. Whereas, the respondent is working as Product Manager in Byjus group and earning Rs.16,00,000/- per annum.

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is unemployed that never subjected the respondent to physical and mental cruelty, never intimidated the respondent and her family members with dire consequences. Further, it is the case of the petitioner the respondent is an educated lady having pursued B.Tech and working for multinational companies. The petitioner lost his job at Byjus due to the propaganda of father of the respondent and therefore, he cannot provide any maintenance.

5. After considering the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- with arrears of maintenance to be paid in three equal installments within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is preferred.

6. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the respondent has chosen to leave the matrimonial house on 03.01.2021 and moved the maintenance case on 20.10.2021 after lapse of ten months. Reference is made on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case between Haunsabai Vs. Balakrishna, 1981 Cri LJ 110, wherein, it is held that when the wife is capable of earning her livelihood and maintain herself independently, allowance cannot be granted indiscriminately. The petitioner was sincere in attending the counselling sessions, but the respondent refused to speak to the petitioner. The petitioner intended to start the conjugal relationship, but the respondent bluntly refused. Reference is made to the cross examination of the respondent as P.W.1, where there is admission that the respondent worked as mother teacher in Advitha International School in the year 2016 on a mon