THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2285 OF 2017 &

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1027 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER:

1 Since the issues involved in both the criminal revision cases are intertwined with each other and since the parties to both the criminal revision cases are one and the same and since the order impugned in both the criminal revision cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2 Since both the criminal revision cases are filed by the petitioner- husband, I refer to the parties to two cases as petitioner and respondent.

3 Petitioner filed both the revision cases aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2017 passed in M.C.No.96 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, which was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking Rs.2.00 lakhs p.m. towards maintenance and Rs.5.00 lakhs p.a. to visit her old aged mother and daughter twice a year and also Rs.50.00 lakhs to take care of studies of their daughter in Brazil and also to look after her mother and also Rs.5.00 lakhs towards legal expenses.

4 The facts pleaded in the said M.C. were that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was a love marriage. It is pleaded that even prior to their marriage on 09.5.2012, the respondent had a daughter through her first husband and that girl was aged about 21 years and after the death of her first husband, the respondent married another man who belongs to Brazil, but later they were on judicial separation. The petitioner and respondent led marital life in Bangalore and Hyderabad for some period and that later the petitioner started harassing the respondent for which she filed DVC No.140 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, wherein she was granted Rs.45,000/- p.m. towards maintenance and also compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The petitioner abandoned the respondent and filed O.P.No.235 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad.

5 It was further pleaded that the Court of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, granted only Rs.45,000/- p.m. whereas she is paying house rent of Rs.30,000/- and that for the life style and standards of the respondent she requires Rs.2.00 lakhs p.m. and that the petitioner can afford such amount as he is earning substantial income of more than Rs.1.00 crore p.m. and that the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance awarded in DVC No.140 of 2013 though he owned several properties and that he is a consulting doctor for several companies and he is also having several houses in Bangalore and Bhubaneswar and that the respondent has no source of income to maintain herself and she is totally dependent on the petitioner to support herself, her daughter and her mother. Hence the petition.

6 In the said petition, the petitioner herein remained ex parte. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the respondent in the form of solitary testimony of the respondent as P.W.1 and the documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A.1 to A.19, allowed the M.C.No.96 of 2015 partly and accordingly awarded Rs.30,000/- p.m. to the respondent by order dated 11.4.2017. As stated supra, aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the Criminal Revision Case No.2285 of 2017 contending that the trial Court erred in granting Rs.30,000/- p.m to the respondent without considering the maintenance already awarded in DVC No.140 of 2013 and without according a chance to the petitioner.

7 The respondent – wife filed a counter affidavit in Criminal Revision Case No.2285 of 2017 contending that though the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, granted Rs.45,000/- p.m. towards maintenance in DVC No.140 of 2013, the petitioner, paid only Rs.1,35,000/- (three months). It is further submitted that the petitioner herein has also not complied with the order dated 11.4.2017, which is impugned herein, and fell due of arrears of maintena