THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1074 of 2019

ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 06.05.2019 in M.C.No.320 of 2018 passed by the learned X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, City Criminal Courts, Nampally (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Rama Kotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner/wife and respondent No.1/husband was performed on 20.05.1990. They were blessed with two children out of their wedlock. The respondent is a free lance photographer in media sector and earning good amount. It is stated that after few months of marriage, the respondent No.1/husband developed illicit intimacy with other woman and started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally and neglected the petitioner and her children. It is further stated that she has incurred Rs.7,00,000/- towards their maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure since 2013. Having no means to maintain herself, petitioner/wife filed M.C.No.320 of 2018 on the file of the learned trial Court seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. The trial Court having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the evidence available on record, vide order dated 06.05.2019 in M.C.No.320 of 2018, allowed the petition directing the respondent No.1/husband to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/-per month to petitioner/wife towards maintenance from the date of petition with a further direction to pay arrears of maintenance amount within five months. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking enhancement of the maintenance granted by the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife contended that the respondent No.1/husband is a renowned photo journalist and he was allotted a plot at Jubilee Hills in Journalist colony by the Government and he sold the same for huge amount and leading a luxuries life. The trial Court, without considering the said fact, granted a maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month which is meager. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order and enhance the maintenance granted by the trial Court.

5. On behalf of the petitioner, she herself got examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.1, none were examined and no document was marked. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. Upon careful consideration of the material record, the trial Court found that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 neglected to maintain her and harassed her physically and mentally. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove the income of the respondent No.1 and his capacity to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance to her. Therefore, the trial Court appropriately passed the impugned order.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order upon assessing the income of respondent No.1 and the living standards of the people in the present day society. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, revision petitioner is granted liberty to workout remedies in accordance with law by filing a petitioner under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C for enhancement of maintanence.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 21.06.2024.

KRL