THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.112 and 418 of 2024

COMMON ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case No.112 of 2024 is filed by the wife, who is the petitioner in M.C.No.320 of 2022 under Sections and 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the order dated 15.12.2023 passed in M.C.No.320 of 2022, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, seeking that the amount granted in M.C.No.320 of 2022 for her maintenance is not sufficient and Criminal Revision Case No.418 of 2024 is filed by the husband, who is the respondent in M.C.No.320 of 2022 under Sections and 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging the legality of the order passed by the trial Court and seeks to set aside the order dated 15.12.2023 passed in M.C.No.320 of 2022, stating that she is not entitled for any maintenance, even though the order passed by the trial Court.

2. Heard Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2024 and Sri D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 – State and Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in Crl.R.C.No.418 of 2024. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband in Crl.R.C.No.418 of 2024 contended that he has no sufficient amount to pay for the maintenance awarded to the wife, as she herself has left the house of the husband without any sufficient reason. Therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance, even though after the order passed by the trial Court, because she is a well educated women and prior to their marriage, she was working and was earning money. After filing of the petitions, she has stopped working. The trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed in M.C.No.320 of 2022 had directed the respondent/husband therein to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2024 contented that, even though the husband is considered as more than worthy, the trial Court awarded only Rs.20,000/-, which is not sufficient to the wife to leave on par with the husband’s family and initially, she has requested the trial Court in M.C.No.320 of 2022 to direct the respondent/husband therein to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month towards her maintenance and due to insufficient amount for her maintenance, she now requires Rs.70,000/- per month and as such, she seeks to enhance the maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court in M.C.No.320 of 2022 from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/husband in Crl.R.C.No.418 of 2024 stated that there are strained relations between the wife and the husband after two days of their marriage and the wife never come to her husband house and the revision petitioner/wife has filed MC petitions in the trial Court and the contentions of the revision petitioner/husband were not considered by the trial Courts and the only answer given in the cross- examination was that he is not willing to take his wife back, despite of the order passed in MC petitions and further stated that the husband is not interested to take his wife back and there is no sufficient capacity to the husband to pay the maintenance amount awarded by the learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/wife in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 2024 contended that, in fact, the wife is ready to join her husband, but her husband is not interested to take her back and filed Criminal Revision Case.

7. Having considered the submissions of both the counsels and the material available on record