CHAGA JAGADEESH VIVEKA Vs. CHAGA SAI ANUSHA
LAWS(APH)-2022-3-6
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 11,2022

Chaga Jagadeesh Viveka Appellant
VERSUS
Chaga Sai Anusha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY,J. - (1.) Assailing the order dtd. 31/7/2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.295 of 2018 in M.C.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, whereby the petition filed for grant of interim maintenance was allowed awarding Rs.5,000.00 per month each towards maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioner.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) The 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is their son born during their lawful wedlock. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C in M.C.No.14 of 2018 on the file of the trial Court for grant of monthly maintenance to them on the ground that the revision petitioner has neglected them and refused to maintain them. Along with the said petition, they have filed another petition under Sec. 125(2) Cr.P.C for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 each per month to them. The revision petitioner has opposed the said petition in the trial Court. After hearing both the revision petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 herein, the said petition was allowed awarding a sum of Rs.5,000.00 per month each towards interim maintenance to respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision case is preferred by the revision petitioner. There is absolutely no dispute relating to the marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent, who is the minor boy, is the son born to them during their lawful wedlock. Therefore, admittedly, the petitioner is the father of the 2nd respondent. Petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 have been living separately on account of the disputes cropped up between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Although it is contended by the revision petitioner that the 1st respondent herself discarded him and has been living separately, the said disputed fact is to be ascertained in the final adjudication of the said case after evidence is adduced by both the parties in support of their contentions. At this stage, there is no material to hold that the 1st respondent has voluntarily discarded the petitioner and living separately. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, being the husband of the 1st respondent and being the father of the 2nd respondent, is bound under law to maintain respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, he has been working as a Maintenance Engineer in a private organization. As per the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, he has been earning Rs.45,000.00 per month. Therefore, he has got sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor son. When he is earning Rs.45,000.00 per month, awarding Rs.5,000.00 each per month towards maintenance to the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent is reasonable amount of interim maintenance that was ordered by the trial Court. Although it is stated that the mother of the revision petitioner has been suffering from T.B. and he has to maintain his mother also, as the revision petitioner has been earning Rs.45,000.00 per month, it cannot be a valid ground to deny interim maintenance to respondents 1 and 2, who are his wife and minor son. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds absolutely no valid legal ground warranting its interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference of this Criminal Revision Case. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to admit the case for hearing. Resultantly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.