THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.480 OF 2022

ORDER

This revision case has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2022 in M.C.No.14 of 2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

2. I have heard Mr. M. Saleem, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakotaiah, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The respondent No.2 as petitioner has filed an application seeking maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) from her husband/revision petitioner and the learned Family Court, after due inquiry granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition with a direction to pay arrears within three months by setting off the amounts paid as per the direction for interim maintenance.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the respondent No.2 had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (for short, ‘PWDV Act’) wherein the learned Magistrate on considering the entire material and merits had awarded Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance and the order is being complied. The learned Family Court without appreciating the fact that the respondent No.2 is receiving maintenance under PWDV Act, awarded amount in the maintenance case. He pleaded that the revision petitioner married the respondent No.2 after the demise of his first wife to take care of himself and other responsibilities as wife. However, the respondent No.2 had harassed for inclusion of her name in the service register and to transfer properties in her name and later left him. As the court below erred in granting maintenance without considering the income and other liabilities of the revision petitioner, prayed for interference and setting aside the impugned order.

5. I have carefully perused the materials on record.

6. The relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent No.2 and their separate living are not in dispute. Though the revision petitioner had contested the aspects of divorce and adulterous life of the respondent No.2, those grounds were not raised in this revision. As the petitioner failed to make out any tenable ground, the liability of the revision petitioner and the entitlement of the respondent No.2 for maintenance shall stand accepted.

7. In regard to quantum of maintenance, the specific contention of the revision petitioner is that the maintenance granted in the PWDV Act is sufficient bu this factor was not taken into account by the Court below. As per the impugned order this aspect was considered by placing reliance on the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another – 2021 (2) SCC 324 and the amount being paid as maintenance under the PWDV Act has been taken into account. Admittedly the revision petitioner is retired police personnel and the pay slip of July, 2021 placed by the respondent No.2 is showing Rs.45,847/- and net of Rs.35,329/-. Though the revision petitioner has filed pension slip at Rs.25,615/- of September, 2015, as the pay slip filed by the respondent No.2 was of the recent time and the genuinity of the pay slip was neither disputed nor rebutted, pension, the entries in the pay slip of July, 2021 has to be counted. It is pertinent to note that though the revision petitioner has claimed dependency of other family members, admittedly and for the reasons best known to him this fact was not pleaded in his assets and liabilities statement. In that view, the respondent No.2’s entitlement for fair portion of pension amount as maintenance would be justified. Even if the amounts awarded in the maintenance granted in PWDV Act and the impugned order are considered together, it is below 1/3^rd of the income reflected in the pay slip of July, 2021. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the maintenance amount awarded