The court remanded the maintenance case to allow the husband to cross-examine the wife and present evidence regarding his income, while directing a provisional monthly payment of Rs. 30,000.

: ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in M.C.No.24 of 2020 by the III Additional District Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Principal Family Court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, wherein the petitioner herein was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to respondents 2 to 4 from the date of order. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as husband and wife.

The respondents 2 to 4 herein filed M.C. No.24 of 2020 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month each. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the respondent was performed on 30.04.2006 at Pippara as per Hindu customs, and substantial dowry in cash, gold, and household articles was given. After marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent at Narsapuram, where he allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, demanded additional property, and harassed her for not pursuing higher studies and employment. The couple has two children. Despite repeated mediations, the respondent continued abusive behavior, drove her out of the house multiple times, and ultimately forced her to leave in 2018 along with the children. It is further alleged that the respondent maintained improper relations with another woman, ill-treated the children, and misused or sold the petitioner’s gold. He refused to take her back unless property was transferred in his name. The respondent, working as a Professor earning about Rs.1,50,000/- per month with additional income, has neglected to maintain the petitioner and children, who are now dependent on relatives. Hence, sought for maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month each.

The respondent therein filed a counter denying all allegations except the marriage and stated that no dowry was received. He contended that the petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own without valid reason, taking the children, and filed the case only to harass him. He claimed that he paid the children’s school fees, but the petitioner therein shifted them to Hyderabad, and despite his efforts for reconciliation, including approaching the Legal Services Committee, she did not cooperate. He stated that he replied to her legal notice requesting her to rejoin him and is still willing to take her back unconditionally. He denied all allegations of cruelty, harassment, improper conduct, and ill-treatment of the children, asserting that the petitioner is well-qualified and working as a teacher earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. He further denied any dowry demand, property demand, mediations, or misuse of gold, claiming the gold is with the petitioner. He also disputed his alleged income and stated that he has financial liabilities and no additional income. Hence, he contended that the maintenance claim is excessive and sought for dismissal of the petition.

After considering the submissions of both parties, the trial Court partly allowed the maintenance case awarding Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.20,000/- each to the children from the date of order as interim maintenance was already granted during pendency of the case. Aggrieved by the said order, the husband filed this revision case.

Heard Sri B.Venkata Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband and Sri T.Laxminarayana, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contends that the Family Court erred in placing undue reliance on the unchallenged testimony of wife and accepted her claims regarding the petitioner’s income without any supporting documentary evidence. Despite recording that no proof was produced to establish that the husband earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month, the Court awarded maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month, which is legally unsustainable. He further contended that no evidence was produced to prove the alleged agricultural income of Rs.3,00,000