B. Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy vs Neelima Vanguru

Both these Criminal Revision Cases have been filed against the order, dated 11.06.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2021 in M.C.No.25 of 2021 on

the file of the XV-Additional District Judge-cum-XV Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II-Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at

Kukatpally.

Since the parties in both these revisions are common and the point involved in these revisions is also one and the same, these two Criminal Revisions

are being disposed of by this common order.

The petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2021 are the wife and children of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.371 of 2021. For the sake of convenience, the

parties hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the impugned order.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners have filed M.C.No.25 of 2021 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.12,00,000/-from the respondent/husband.

Along with the M.C., they have also filed Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2021 seeking interim maintenance at Rs.12,00,000/- per month, pending disposal of the

M.C., from the date of filing of the petition.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record, the Court below awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

wife and Rs.1,81,250/- each to the children. Challenging the same, the respondent/husband filed Crl.R.C.No.371 of 2021 and the petitioners/wife and

children have filed Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2021 seeking enhancement of the said maintenance amount to Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,00,000/-each

to the children.

Heard Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned counsel appearing for the wife and children, Sri L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel for Sri V. Raja

Gopal Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the husband, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the record.

As seen from the record, admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children of the respondent and there is no

dispute with regard to the relationship between them. The contention of the respondent/husband is that the quantum of interim maintenance awarded

by the Court below is on higher side, therefore he seeks reduction of the same, whereas the contention of the wife and children are that the Court

below failed to take into consideration the income received by the respondent/husband from M/s. Vishrutha Constructions Private Limited, of which

he is a founder Director and a major share holder of the company and that the Court below while computing the income of the respondent/husband

failed to consider the rental income of Rs.5,00,000/- per month which is being received by the respondent/husband from the immovable properties

owned by him, therefore, they seek enhancement of the interim maintenance awarded by the Court below.

Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. if any

person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children whether married or not, and his

father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly

allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that the object of grant of maintenance is to afford a

subsistence allowance to the wife and children who are not able to maintain themselves. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing

and shelter to the deserted wife and children. Maintenance awarded to a wife and children is not a bounty and it is awarded to them, so that they can

survive. The provisions of maintenance of wife and children intend to serve a social purpose. It is also well settled that Court has power, on being

prima facie satisfied, to pass interim order directing the person from whom the maintenance is claimed to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim

maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application.

In the instant case, admittedly, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who are the children of the 1st petitioner and respondent, are leading a quality life and they

are studying in an International School apart from involving them in extra curricular activities. Further, it has been observed by the Court below that

“whether the expenditure shown by the respondent/husband and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are totally correct or not can be taken up in the trial for

final decision while disposing of the main caseâ€. While granting interim maintenance, the Court below has considered the order passed in I.A.No.358

of 2018 in F.C.O.P.No.1252 of 2017, which was marked as Ex.P7, wherein an amount of Rs.1,56,250/- each has already been awarded to the

children. A perusal of the income tax returns would show that the respondent/husband has taken the benefits in the taxation system in U.S.A. in the

name of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 while showing them as kids. Therefore, the Court below has rightly added an amount of Rs.25,000/- each to petitioner

Nos.2 and 3. Since the F.C.O.P. has already been disposed off and the interim maintenance was given till the disposal of the said F.C.O.P., the Court

below has fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.1,56,250/- (which was already been granted to them) + Rs.25,000/- = Rs.1,81,250/-.

Insofar as the maintenance to the 1st petitioner/wife is concerned, the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The record reveals

that though a specific direction was given to the respondent to join the company of the petitioners at Hyderabad, vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed in

F.C.O.P.No.1139 of 2017, the respondent failed to join them.

In Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353

, the Apex Court held that ""the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an un-person to be thrown

away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have

lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a

wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.

Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation

of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to

resign to her fate and think of life ""dust unto dust"". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the

husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the

wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.

Further, a perusal of the material on record would show that the respondent/husband himself admitted that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.61 of

2020 before the Family Court, Kukatpally, seeking partition of the family properties. Therefore, it is clear that apart from the salary, the

respondent/husband is having immovable properties. Therefore, considering the earning capacity of the respondent, the Court below has rightly

awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner/wife. Hence, there are no grounds to reduce the said amount. However, the petitioners, who

are wife and children, have shown ample grounds to enhance the interim maintenance to be granted to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who born in

America. Hence, instead of awarding interim maintenance of Rs.1,81,250/- each to the children, the Court ought to have awarded a lump sum amount

of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the children, who are the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, towards interim maintenance.

Apparently, the main M.C.No.25 of 2021 is pending. Since there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioners and the

respondent and as the respondent/husband has got sufficient means to maintain his wife and children, this Court is of the view that the 1st petitioner is

entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to Rs.2.00 lakhs each towards interim maintenance (totaling to Rs.5,00,000/-). The

respondent/ husband shall pay the enhanced amount of interim maintenance commencing from September, 2021. Hence, to the extent indicated above,

the order passed by the Court below is modified.

Accordingly, Crl.R.C.No.371 of 2021 is dismissed and the Crl.R.C.No.373 of 2021 is partly allowed. The respondent/ husband is directed to deposit

the entire arrears of interim maintenance as awarded by the trial Court within one month and the respondent/husband shall continue to pay the

enhanced interim maintenance of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioners commencing from September, 2021 on or before 5th of every succeeding month, till

the disposal of the main M.C. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of M.C.No.25 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, by the

end of December, 2021.