ORDER:

This Criminal revision case under Sections 397 & 401 CrPC is preferred against the order, dated 27.04.2022, allowing Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 in M.C.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Heard Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3.

3. The 2nd respondent herein is the mother of the 3rd respondent and is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. The marriage of the 2nd respondent with the revision petitioner was celebrated on 20.05.2006 as per Christian rites and customs at Venkata Krishnarayapuram, Samalkot Mandal, Kakinada. It is alleged that the revision petitioner has totally neglected the respondents 2 & 3. The revision petitioner is working as Deputy Jailor in District Jail, Srikakulam, and drawing a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. He has house, gold and cash and sufficient bank balance. The 2nd respondent has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter and hence, she filed Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2021 in M.C.No.15 of 2021 seeking direction to the revision petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to respondents 2 & 3 herein.

4. The revision petitioner herein filed counter, while admitting the relationship, denying the other allegations made in the petition. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent developed illegal affair with an unknown person and she gave all chit amount, gold and other valuables in the house. The 2nd respondent did not join the revision petitioner at Kadapa and used to reside with her father at Kadapa, and in spite of repeated requests, she did not join the revision petitioner. It is further averred that the revision petitioner has no means even to make his survival and he is getting a meager salary and living in a rented house along with his old aged mother who is suffering from several ailments. He has no means to pay maintenance as claimed and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month to respondents 2 & 3 from the month of filing the petition, i.e., from November, 2022 till disposal of the maintenance case.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner preferred this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that the petition for maintenance is a counterblast to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and that the 2nd respondent herein, since left the company of the revision petitioner voluntarily, is not entitled to any maintenance. He placed reliance on the decisions in Smt. Gita v. Sushree Geeta1, Arun v. Reshma2, and Deb Narayanan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder3. He further submitted that the revision petitioner himself is facing financial hardship as the salary is not enough to meet the expenses and the maintenance of his mother who is suffering from sickness due to old age.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 vehemently opposed the revision submitting that the question of voluntary desertion by the 2nd respondent is to be enquired in the main case, but with the averments on both sides, the Family Court has rightly granted interim maintenance. He further submitted that the respondents 2 & 3 are entitled to interim maintenance irrespective of the proceedings pending for restitution of conjugal rights.

1 Criminal Application No.663 of 2008 & Criminal Writ Petition No.58 of 2008

decided on 20.01.2009 (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench)

2 RPFC No.571 of 2018, dated 08.12.2022 (High Court of Kerala)

3 Appeal (Crl.) 1059 of 2003, dated 26.08.2003

9. For grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, be it final order or interim order, the main consideration is whether the revision petitioner willfully neglected to maintain the respondents 2 & 3 herein. In the final order, such observation would be made