High CourtsSingle Bench

K. Yeshoda Bai vs K. Shankara Rao and Another

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 October 1992 · Citation: (1992) 3 ALT 570 : (1993) 2 CivCC 63

HON’BLE JUDGES
Radha Krishna Rao, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 127, 397, 401
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Case No. 287 of 1991
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 353 words

Radha Krishna Rao, J.—This criminal revision case is filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool reducing the quantum of maintenance which was enhanced by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur.

2.

Originally, the petitioner was granted a sum of Rs. 250/- per month towards maintenance. On a revision filed by the first respondent herein, the, learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 150/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 283 of 1990 for enhancement of the maintenance on the ground that the cost of living has gone up. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of all the relevant facts, enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 250/- per month. On a revision filed by the first respondent herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the learned Sessions Judge found that no valid reasons are put forth for enhancement of the maintenance and accordingly, the learned Judge reduced the maintenance to Rs. 150/- per month.

3.

It is seen from the order of the lower court that as petitioner failed to prove the additional income that is being derived by the husband (1st respondent herein) subsequent to the passing of the previous maintenance order, the courts below have thought it fit to confirm the maintenance as originally granted i.e., Rs. 150/- per month. No doubt, the cost of living has gone up. Merely because the cost of living has gone up, it does not mean that the person who is paying maintenance should be burdened further whose income has not shown to have been increased. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. The criminal revision case is dismissed.

4.

However, it is open to the petitioner to agitate the matter provided she is able to prove that the income of the first respondent has since increased. It is however, made clear that it is the additional income and potentialities of the husband (1st respondent) that have to be taken into account at the time of enhancement of the maintenance amount but not the cost of living.