Bashasab vs Mehamooda Begum and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri. Narendra M. Reddy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri.Ajay Kumar for the petitioner. Perused the records.

Petitioner being aggrieved by the award of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded to 4th respondent by Trial Court, as confirmed by the Revisional Court is seeking for quashing of these orders.

Respondents herein being the daughters of petitioner, filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance contending inter alia that they are the daughters of petitioner and their mother died about two years back in the year 2007 and the marriage of their mother with the petitioner has been solemnized in the year 1973-74 and she had begotten five daughters and on account of their mother being unable to deliver a male child, petitioner had deserted her and was thrown out of matrimonial house and on account of they being unable to maintain themselves they sought for award of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- for each per month.

Petitioner herein appeared before Trial Court and filed statement of objection contending that he is the guardian of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and he has been taking care of all their expenses and hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition. Trial Court after considering the evidence tendered by the parties allowed the petition and directed petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- each per month to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein by order dated 17.07.2014. Being aggrieved by said order respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 140/2014. Revisional Court after re-appreciating the evidence and considering the material evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have attained majority and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are already married and respondent No. 1 is also working as a teacher were not entitled for maintenance. So far as respondent No. 4 is concerned, Revisional Court found that there was no material to disbelieve the claim made by her. In other words, it held father had not been able to place any material to show that he was taking care of respondent No. 4 and as such Revisional Court has affirmed the award of maintenance granted to 4th respondent. It is these two orders which are sought for being quashed by the petitioner in this petition.

It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that material evidence produced by the petitioner namely, Study Certificates Exs.R1 to R3 clearly establishes that he is taking care of respondent No. 4 also and as such trial Court as well as Revisional Court ought not to have granted any maintenance in favour of respondent No. 4. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the claim petition by allowing the present petition.

Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the parties and on perusal of the orders under challenge it would clearly establish the fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are daughters of petitioner herein. It is only after the death of their mother, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have approached the jurisdictional Court seeking payment of maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. In these hard days where the cost of living has escalated, it cannot be expected that a major daughter who is not married or gainfully employed would be able to maintain herself in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month. However, fact remains that it is this amount which was claimed by 4th respondent herein to maintain herself. In view of the fact that respondent No. 4 is not married, she is still studying in college and undisputedly, petitioner herein had deserted mother of 4th respondent and she being able to maintain herself are attendant circumstances which would point to the fact that she is entitled for maintenance. It is because of this reason, Trial Court as well as Revisional Court have rightly arrived at a conclusion that 4th respondent would be entitled for maintenance and as such it has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to be paid by the petitioner herein till she gets married or obtains gainful employment.

In view of the aforesaid stated facts, I do not find any illegality having been committed by the Courts below calling for interference by this Court to quash these orders. No grounds are made out. Hence, criminal petition is hereby rejected.

In view of rejection of the petition, I.A. No. 1/2015 for stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.