Shanigarapu Ramadas vs State Of Telangana

This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order, dated 19.02.2016, in M.C.No.88 of 2014, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, wherein the application filed by the second respondent herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was allowed granting maintenance of Rs.7500/- per month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. Perused the material record.

According to the petitioner, he has married the second respondent in or about 1965-66 and their marriage was consummated and they were blessed with one daughter and three sons. The petitioner was an employee in Mandal Parishad, Huzurabad and now he was retired employee getting monthly pension of Rs.22,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner necked out the second respondent in the year 2006. She used to work as Aganwadi worker and during that time getting an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. In the year 2007 the petitioner sold away the house bearing No.2-12-4 and share of Rs.1,40,875/- was allotted to the second respondent. But the petitioner did not pay the same. The second respondent is residing with her third son by name Rajanikanth and the second respondent is suffering from ill-health and unable to attend any work. The petitioner is having source of income and neglected and refused to maintain the second respondent. Therefore, she filed petition claiming the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month.

The petitioner filed a counter denying all the allegations and submitted that the second respondent herself harassed the petitioner without any reasonable cause and residing separately. The petitioner stated that the second respondent demanded to give entire retirement funds to their youngest son and also to give house property bearing No.2-12-4 which is the self acquired property of the petitioner. When the petitioner refused for the same, differences arose and the second respondent left the company of the petitioner and started living with her son Rajanikanth without any valid reason for the last ten years. The second respondent is working as Aganwadi worker and getting Rs.4200/- per month.

During the course of enquiry before the Family Court, the second respondent was examined as P.W.1 and examined PW.2 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked on her side. The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-5 were marked.

After hearing the submissions of both the counsel and after considering the material on record, the learned Judge allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7500/- per month towards maintenance of the second respondent from the date of petition and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was held in or about 1965-66. The petitioner was a government employee and retired as in-charge M.P.D.O. Mandal Parishad in the year 2005 and getting Rs.22,000/- per month towards pension. They are living separately from the year 2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent left the society of the petitioner and deserted him and living with her third son. The petitioner is suffering from old age ailments and the amount received by him is hardly sufficient to maintain himself. As such, the impugned order awarding an amount of Rs.7500/- per month to the second respondent by the Court below may be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioner is a retired government employee and getting pension of Rs.22,000/- per month and neglected and refused to maintain the second respondent. As such, the Court below after taking into consideration of the circumstances awarded maintenance and there are no justifiable grounds to set aside the impugned order.

The petitioner is a retired Government employee. The petitioner and the second respondent are living separately since 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner being a retired Government servant and getting handful of pension, has not provided any amount towards her maintenance. The petitioner has not shared even retiremental benefits to the second respondent and entire benefits are kept by him. In fact the petitioner himself stated that differences alleged to have been arose when youngest son Rajanikanth demanded the petitioner to pay entire retirement benefits to him and the second respondent supported her youngest son Rajanikanth and also demanded to give house bearing No.2-12-4 situated at Vidyaranyapuri, Hanamkonda, to him. It is also alleged that the petitioner has not even paid any money out of retirement benefits to the second respondent. The petitioner sold the said house. Though, it was decided by the elders to give share of Rs.1,40,875/- to the second respondent, the petitioner did not pay the same.

The petitioner and the second respondent are living separately for the last ten years and she is sufficiently old aged and the petitioner being a retired Government employee failed to provide any maintenance to her inspite of getting handful of pension. The evidence of both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case revealed that the petitioner has not provided any maintenance to the second respondent and totally neglected and refused to maintain her. Though it is alleged that the second respondent is working as Aganwadi worker and getting Rs.4,000/- per month, but the said amount is meager to lead life up to the living standards of her husband. It is unfortunate situation that at the fag-end of life, after getting retirement, the petitioner and the second respondent being the husband and wife are living separately. The Court below has not believed the contention of petitioner that the second respondent herself deserted and held that the petitioner is having sufficient means and neglected and refused to maintain the second respondent and after taking into consideration of his pension of Rs.22,000/- per month, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.7500/- per month to the second respondent towards her maintenance. The quantum of maintenance to be awarded should be always by taking into consideration of the standard of living of the petitioner and the petitioner being a pensioner, quantum of Rs.7500/- per month is sufficient and does not warrant interference of this Court.

In the said circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.