A petition for maintenance cannot be dismissed at the threshold for lack of medical evidence; it should be decided on its merits based on the relationship and circumstances.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the docket order dated 06.05.2025 in SR No.752 of 2025 and 29.04.2025 in SR No.693 of 2025 returning the petitions by the learned Judge, Family Court Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally and direct the learned Judge to number the maintenance case (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri R.S.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.3 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel submits that he has filed a petition seeking maintenance of the wife and son of respondent No.1 i.e. the petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the son of respondent No.1. The office has taken objections in the first instance with regard to the maintainability of the petition stating that the petitioner No.2 is the major son aged 22 years and another objection was also taken as to the maintainability of the petition against the respondent No.2 who is the step son of petitioner No.1. He argued that his petition is maintainable and has again resubmitted the petition by complying the objections but still the office has returned it again for want of medical certificates of the petitioner No.2. He further submitted that petitioner No.2 suffered injuries and is unable to maintain himself and thus, the petition is maintainable. He further submitted that respondent No.2 the step son inherited the family estate which is purchased from step mother’s money and petitioner No.2 is unable to maintain himself because of the injuries, therefore, the petition is maintainable. However, on his re-submission, again the petition was returned for want of medical record. Therefore, he prayed to direct the trial Court to register the petition.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the medical certificate is very much required to assess the maintainability of the petition without which the petition cannot be numbered.

5. Perused the record. The record discloses that the petitioner has filed petition under Section 144 (1) of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 seeking maintenance against respondent No.1 and 2. It is mentioned that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.1 while the petitioner No.2 is the son of respondent No.1. It is also stated that the petitioner No.2 is a major aged about 22 years. It is further revealed that the respondent No.2 is the step son of the petitioner No.1 and the son of respondent No.1. Thus, the office has taken objections as to the maintainability of the petition against respondent No.2 who is the step son of petitioner No.1. It has further taken another objection that how the petition can be maintained for petitioner No.2 who is a major aged 22 years. Then, the counsel has resubmitted offering explanation that petitioner No.2 suffered injuries and is unable to maintain himself and thus, is eligible to seek maintenance and he further submitted that the respondent No.2 being a step son and having inherited the family estate purchased from step mother’s (petitioner No.1) money, the petition is maintainable as filed by him. On his submission, again the petition was returned for want of medical record of the petitioner No.2 but the counsel has resubmitted it saying that all the objections are complied and the same was again returned stating that the objections are not complied. It has to be seen in this regard that the contention of the petitioners is that they are eligible to seek maintenance from respondent Nos.1 and 2. The relationship between the petitioners and the respondents and the quantum of maintenance if any to be awarded would depend on the evidence that is going to be produced before the C