ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 11.12.2015 in M.C.No.19 of 2013 on the file of learned Judge Family Court, Warangal (for short, “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1/State.

3. There is no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Utter Pradesh 1 ”, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.

4. A brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.2 was performed on 26.02.2012 at Venkateshwara Gardens, Beside City Grand Hotel, Opp.Rama Krishna Theater at Hanamakonda, Warangal. The marriage was not consummated on account of impotency of the petitioner. It was also found that the petitioner got illicit intimacy with one

1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

Vineetha, who resides at Bangalore. Thus, respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and mental harassing at the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner further neglected her and failed to maintain her. Thus, respondent No.2 was dependant on her parents for her livelihood. Unable to bear the harassment of petitioner, respondent No.2, filed maintenance case before the trial Court.

5. The learned Judge, trial Court vide impugned order granted a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. The trial Court further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Respondent No.2 was further directed to open a SB Account in her name in the bank of her choice and intimate the said details to the petitioner, to enable him to pay the arrears accrued so far and the monthly maintenance every month on or before 5th of every succeeding month through online banking. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

6. As per the grounds raised in the affidavit the revision, the petitioner contended that the trial Court on examination of PWs.1 to 3 found that because of impotency of the petitioner the marital bond started dwindling and it was doubtful whether the marriage was consummated or not. However, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 establishes that the petitioner refused and neglected to maintain respondent No.2. Therefore, taking into consideration the financial status of petitioner at the time of marriage, as the father of the petitioner was pensioner living his own life and keeping in view the sky rocket prices the trial Court passed the impugned judgment cited supra and he does not possess sufficient means to maintain his wife and seeks to set aside the impugned order to allow revision.

7. Respondent No.2 on her own accord left the society of her husband and therefore seeks to dismiss the revision.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court after careful consideration of the material placed on record passed the impugned order. Therefore, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and therefore seeks to dismiss the revision.

9. On behalf of respondent No.2, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 3 and no document was marked. On behalf of the petitioner RWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Ex.B1.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the petitioner vis-à-vis the living standards of the people in the present day society. Challenging such a meager amount is not permissible at this stage as the costs of living standards of the people have escalated to a larger extent. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case i