THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.676 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in M.C.No.538 of 2022 by the II Additional Family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent. Petitioner No.1 stated that she married the respondent on 12.08.2007 as per Islamic Law and soon after marriage, the respondent left for Jeddah, leaving her with his parents, who allegedly harassed her mentally. She further stated that the respondent neglected to provide love, care and financial support, took away her salary, addicted to alcohol and tobacco, and failed to take care of her during pregnancy. After returning to India in 2011, the respondent continued to neglect her and the children and even prevented her from entering the matrimonial home in

2014. It was further alleged that the respondent had an extra-marital affair and physically abused her, leading to separation. Petitioner No.1 claimed she earned only Rs.20,000/- which was insufficient to maintain herself and the minor children. On the other hand, the respondent denied all allegations except marriage and paternity of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He stated that the petitioner herself was quarrelsome, refused to stay with him and spent money lavishly. He claimed that he had taken care of the family, paid school fees and medical expenses, and was always willing to cohabit. He further contended that petitioner No.1 was employed and earning sufficiently, whereas he was earning only Rs.40,000/- per month and also burdened with loans. He asserted that he had already filed cases for restitution of conjugal rights and guardianship of the minors.

3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that the parties had been living separately for long and the respondent neglected to provide maintenance. The trial Court observed that petitioner No.1 failed to prove that she was currently unemployed and earning insufficiently. Considering the respondent’s income and the educational needs of the children, the Court partly allowed the petition and awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, totalling Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of order. The claim of petitioner No.1 for maintenance was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed.

4. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Mohammed Abdul Qaiyoum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order of the trial Court was contrary to law and liable to be set aside, as the Court erred in holding that petitioner No.1 was a working woman and therefore not entitled to maintenance. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that petitioner No.1 had already left her job, which was clearly mentioned in her evidence affidavit filed in 2019, and wrongly relied on the earlier dismissal of interim maintenance passed prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sneha vs. Rajnesh. He further contended that the burden lay on the respondent to prove that petitioner No.1 was employed as on the date of judgment, and that even a working woman is entitled to maintenance in law and that the trial Court ignored the petitioners’ evidence and reached findings without proper judicial reasoning, warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the trial C