HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 622 OF 2022
Between:
1. PALAMALA RRMBABU S/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 46 years, Occ. Conductor. APSRTC, R/o. Choukicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal,Prakasam District.
...PETITIONER(S) AND:
1. SMT PALAMALA NEELAVENI W/o. Palamala Rambabu, C/o. Duvvuru Mastanaiah, aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. D.No. 26-3-178, 3rd street, Thyagaraja Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor at High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): KOPPARTHI SUMATHI Counsel for the Respondents: K PALLAVI
The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.622 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is preferred aggrieved by the docket order, dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court–cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore granting interim maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of application till the disposal of main case and also directing the petitioner herein to pay the arrears within two (2) months.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows;
The petitioner herein is the respondent before the learned trial Court in M.C.No.51 of 2019 filed by the 1 st respondent herein who is his wife. The 1 st respondent herein who is the petitioner in the trial Court filed a case in
M.C.No.51 of 2019 alleging that her marriage with the petitioner herein had taken place on 02.6.2004 and at that time of the marriage on demand, cash as well as gold jewellery apart from house hold articles towards dowry were given and that they lived together happily for five (5) years at Choukicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District and after the death of the father of the husband of the petitioner herein she was demanded to others used to harass her both mentally and physically to bring additional dowry and finally as she failed to satisfy the demand she was necked out from the matrimonial house in the year 2015, whereby as her parents are also died due to anguish about her future, she took shelter in the house of her paternal uncle residing in Nellore City. A criminal case is also pending against her husband/the petitioner registered under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Her husband/the petitioner herein is working as Conductor in APSRTC and drawing Rs.35,000/- per month and he possessed of Ac.35.00 cents of land in village apart from own house, whereas she has no income at all having no properties and that she has been dragging on her life with great hardship.
Thus, she claimed maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month.
The petitioner herein who is the husband filed counter in M.C.No.51 of 2019 and admitted their relationship as husband and wife and also that pendency of investigation in Criminal Case and that his wife is now living away from him and it is from the year 2015 and that he is an employee in APSRTC etc., However, he denied the averments namely taking dowry, harassing his wife much less with a demand for additional dowry and that he and house. It is denied that he is drawing salary of Rs.35,000/- per month and possessed of land property of an extent of
Ac.35.00 cents of land and a house. It is stated that his wife the R-1 herein was suffering from various health issues, which he came to know after the marriage and she used to visit her parents house frequently and that she used to torture him with a demand to put up separate residence and when he refused she used to threaten him by pouring kerosene on herself and used to inflict injuries with knife for herself. He stated that he is receiving an amount of Rs.13,130/- per month towards salary and that the Court below has no jurisdiction and so prayed to dismiss the petition.
The learned trial Court passed the docket order on
05.05.2022 by directing the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of RS.5000/- per month.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the pay slip of the petitioner he is getting net amount of
Rs.11,029/- only and that the learned trial Court did not follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 1 and the learned trial Court ought to have proceeded with enquiry in the main case itself instead of passing interim maintenance by way of impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the 1 st respondent who is the wife opposed the petition by contending that the interim maintenance granted by the Court below is in fact meagre and in the present days Rs.5,000/- is not at all s
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.