THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1086 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 10.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.04 of 2022 in M.C.No.70 of 2014 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-II Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.2, along with her children, had earlier filed M.C.No.70 of 2014 seeking maintenance. The trial Court, by order dated 17.09.2016, directed the respondent to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to petitioner No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1 filed the present petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month on the ground that she was suffering from old-age ailments, her children were pursuing higher studies, and the respondent’s income had substantially increased through salary, rent, agricultural income, and business activities.

3. On the other hand, respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the allegations and contending that the petitioner No.1 had already been divorced long back and was receiving Aasara pension from the Government. He further stated that the petitioner No.2 and 3 had attained majority and were earning independently. He asserted that he was getting a net salary of Rs.52,530/- after deductions and was maintaining his second wife and six children, and therefore, was not in a position to pay any enhanced amount. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the trial Court held that the petitioner No.1 was the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and that the existing maintenance amount was insufficient in view of the increased cost of living. Considering the salary and obligations of respondent No.2, the Court partly allowed the petition and enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- to petitioner No.1, payable from the date of filing of the petition, with arrears to be cleared within six months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the present criminal revision case.

4. Heard Sri Abdul Azam Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1, being the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2, had earlier been granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in M.C.No.70 of 2014, but due to the steep rise in the cost of living, medical expenses, and educational needs of the dependents, the said amount had become insufficient. He contended that the respondent was earning a substantial monthly income exceeding Rs.3,80,000/- from salary, rent, agricultural income, and other business sources, and that the petitioner No.1, suffering from old-age ailments and maintaining her dependent children, was finding it difficult to meet essential expenses. He contended that the trial Court failed to properly consider the financial capacity of respondent No.2 and the genuine needs of the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2, who admittedly is employed as a Government servant drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.1,09,961/-. The respondent con