APHC010399582016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3367]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1398/2016 Between:

Madasu Srinivasa Rao, Srikakulam Dt., ...PETITIONER AND Madasu Aruna Kumari Srikakulam 3 Otrs ...RESPONDENT(S)

Rep Pp and Others Counsel for the Petitioner:

KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

Assailing the Order dated 26.03.2016 in F.C.M.C.No.14 of

2015 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court at Srikakulam, the petitioner/respondent/husband filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the original petition as pleaded by the respondent/wife are that:

i). The marriage of the 1st respondent and revision petitioner was solemnized on 11.03.1993 at Anjaneyapuram, Cheepurupalli in Vizianagaram District as per Hindu rites and caste custom. At the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, two gold rings and one gold chain to the respondent as well a wristwatch and cash of Rs.5,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanams. The marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children.

ii). Subsequently, the revision petitioner addicted to bad vices, also having illicit intimacy with one Ramanamma of Tekkali and he took away her gold ornaments. He beat her and did not take any care towards her and children. He also insisted her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and necked out her from the matrimonial home on 16.09.2012. Since then, she is residing at her parents’ house along with her children.

ii). The revision petitioner is working as driver in A.P.S.R.T.C., Palakonda and getting Rs.40,000/- towards salary. He is also having properties devolved in partition more than Rs.20,00,000/- and is capable to maintain the respondents. Thereby, the revision petitioner/husband is bound to maintain them by paying monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1^st respondent/wife and Rs.7,500/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/children. Hence, the petition.

3. The petition was taken on file and numbered as F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court at Srikakulam.

4. The petitioner/husband filed counter and denied the allegations made by the respondent/wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that:

They lived happily in the joint family for three years and thereafter, the 1^st respondent started harassment with a demand to go for rented house from the joint family. She suspected his character, abused him, and did not provide food to him. She encouraged their sons to beat him before public. She is having sufficient means to maintain herself along with children. Thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During enquiry, the wife herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 as well she got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. On behalf of the husband, himself examined as R.W.1 and he got examined his sister as R.W.2, but no documents were exhibited on his behalf.

6. After full-fledged enquiry, learned Judge, Family Court at Srikakulam, vide order dated 26.03.2016, granted monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the respondent/wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/children from the date of order payable on or before 5^th of every month.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred present criminal revision case.

8. Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and Sri T.Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/wife and children.

9. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by