THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2557/2021

ORDER

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “BNSS”) by the petitioner/husband, challenging the order dated 05.11.2020 passed in Crl.R.P. No.19 of 2020 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences against Women, Srikakulam. By the said order, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-, thereby confirming the order in M.C. No. 7 of 2015, wherein maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month was granted to respondent No.2, while the maintenance claim of respondent No.1/wife was dismissed.

2. Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothur, in M.C. No.07 of 2015 dated 03.01.2020, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the 2^nd Respondent, is illegal and unsustainable. It is contended that the 1^st Respondent is not the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner and that both of them lived together only as man and wife without any valid marriage. It is further submitted that due to disputes between them, the matter was resolved in the presence of village elders, wherein the 1^st Respondent agreed to live separately after receiving clothes and a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards permanent alimony and undertook to maintain the 2^nd Respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the said fact was also admitted by the 1^st Respondent in her cross-examination before the learned Trial Court. Inspite of it, the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, granted maintenance to the 2^nd Respondent. It is also contended that the Petitioner is eking out his livelihood by doing mason work at Chennai and is already maintaining his present wife, two children and aged mother, and therefore he is not in a financial position to pay the maintenance amount as ordered by the Court below. Hence, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, Sri. Taddi Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Trial Court correctly appreciated the factual circumstances of the case and properly upheld the judgment of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that there are no infirmities, no material irregularities, and no valid grounds to quash the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

4. Respondent No.1, being the alleged wife of the petitioner, filed M.C. No. 7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothuru, Srikakulam District, seeking maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month for herself and Rs.5,000/- per month for respondent No.2. However, only Rs.3,000/- was granted to respondent No.2. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 though disputed, no proof was filed and established. Thus, the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.2.

5. Before the learned Magistrate, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner, and three witnesses were examined on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Five documents were marked on the behalf of the petitioner/husband. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The present Criminal Petition is confined only to the order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.2. Even that amount, in the considered view of this Court, is a very meager sum. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. Respondent No.2 was about 8 years old at the time of disposal of the M.C. The petitioner, being the father of respondent No.2, who was of tender age, is legally bound to maintain his daughter. He cannot abdicate his r