The obligation to maintain dependents is continuous and independent of other proceedings, rooted in social justice provisions protecting vulnerable individuals.

ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1008/2018 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada.

2. Sri M.Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the learned Court below suffers from perversity and material irregularity, being contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case. It is urged that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance without proper appreciation of the chief affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the C.P.C.,’) which itself constitutes a procedural violation. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No.2 failed to substantiate her allegations with documentary proof regarding alleged payments of cash and Adapaduchukatnam, yet the learned Court erroneously allowed the petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further argue that the present proceedings are a second round of litigation, filed only after withdrawal of M.C.No.144/2017, and hence barred by principles of judicial propriety and fairness.

3. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the pendency of D.O.P.No.3/2016 before the learned Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, and G.W.O.P No.52/2017 before the learned Family Court, Vijayawada, which clearly demonstrate that the Respondent No.2 is attempting to harass the Petitioner by initiating multiple proceedings. The order directing payment of Rs.7,500/- and Rs.5,000/- per month to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is alleged to be excessive, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and it is urged that the impugned judgment be set aside as being unsustainable in law.

4. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned Legal Aid Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 would vehemently oppose the submissions of the Petitioner, contending that the learned Family Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 125 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and allied provisions to secure maintenance for the wife and child. It is argued that the Petitioner, being legally bound to maintain his dependents, cannot shirk his responsibility by raising technical objections regarding procedural aspects of evidence. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the absence of documentary proof does not ipso facto negate the oral testimony of PW.1, which was found credible and sufficient by the learned Court below. The grant of maintenance is a measure of social justice, intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, and therefore the order deserves to be upheld.

5. It is further contended that the Petitioner’s reliance on pendency of other proceedings is wholly misconceived, as the right to claim maintenance is independent and recurring in nature. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 would emphasize that multiplicity of proceedings was necessitated only due to the Petitioner’s continued neglect and refusal to provide sustenance. The quantum of maintenance awarded, Rs.7,500/- to the Respondent No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent No.3/child is reasonable, proportionate to the Petitioner’s means, and in consonance with settled principles of law. The learned Family Court’s order, being well- reasoned and founded on equity, justice, and good conscience, warrants no interference by this Court.

6. Thoughtful consideration is be