Y.Bhanu Prakash vs State Of AP

This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 18.12.2017 in M.C.No.134 of 2015, on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-IX Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material record.

The petitioner is the husband and the second respondent is his wife and the third respondent is their son. The second respondent filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to her and to their son i.e. the third respondent herein from the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and the second respondent was a love marriage and inter-caste marriage held on 27.01.2011 at Arya Samaj Mandir and later, their parents performed their marriage on 25.02.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs. Their marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock, the third respondent was born to them on 19.05.2012. After that disputes arose between them and the parents of the petitioner necked out her along with child on 05.12.2012. In February, 2013, a petition was filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and after receiving notice she appeared before the Court and after counseling, the second respondent along with child joined the petitioner at her matrimonial house. On 30.01.2013, the petitioner left the second and third respondent at the Court premises and when she went to her in-laws house, they did not allow her. Since then she is residing with her parents along with her child. The parents of the second respondent are not in a position to maintain them. The petitioner is running a Cyber Café Internet shop and earning Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. As such, the second prayed to award Rs.15,000/- per month to her and her child.

The petitioner filed counter denying the allegations and submitted that the second respondent is a highly educated and MBA post graduate and working in different in multinational corporate companies and earning handful salary of more than Rs.30,000/- per month. Apart from that, she is doing business and running a bakery in the name and style of “Could 9 Bakers and Confectioners”. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not doing any business or running Cyber Cafe and he studied upto 10th class and working as Xerox operating boy and earning Rs.4500/- per month. The petitioner further submitted that he filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and later withdrawn the same and filed divorce OP and the same is pending. The second respondent herself left the conjugal society of the petitioner and he never subjected her to ill-treatment and prayed to dismiss the petition.

During the course of enquiry, both parties adduced evidence. The second respondent examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P6 on her behalf and the petitioner himself examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.R.1 to R-4 on his behalf.

After considering the submissions of both the counsel and evidence on record, the trial Court refused to award maintenance to the second respondent and awarded maintenance to the third respondent at Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent is working as PRE in Care Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and drawing handful salary of Rs.17,000/- per month, whereas the petitioner is working as Xerox operator and getting Rs.5300/- per month and the trial Court without considering the same, has granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the third respondent. The second respondent has suppressed her income source and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

The petitioner never neglected and failed to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the second respondent herself left the company of the petitioner and not willing to join him and the petition is not maintainable and therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision and set aside the orders of the trial Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the trial Court after considering the evidence of both parties rightly awarded maintenance to respondent No.3 and the said order needs no interference and he prayed to dismiss the revision.

The undisputed facts are that the petitioner and the second respondent are husband and wife and out of their wedlock, the third respondent was born to them. It appears after birth of the third respondent, disputes arose between the parties. The second respondent alleged that she was necked out of the house on 5.12.2012 along with their child. Subsequently, the petitioner filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights and she appeared before the Court and after counseling, both of them joined and started living together. After some time, when the petitioner and the second respondent went to the Court to report the matter of their living together, the petitioner abruptly left her and her child in the Court and went away. Later, when the second respondent went to her in-laws house, they have not allowed her. The petitioner has withdrawn OP No.1786 of 2012 filed for restitution of conjugal rights and filed OP.No.403 of 2015 for divorce and the same is pending.

It appears from the evidence of both the parties, the second respondent was willing to join her matrimonial house, but the petitioner and his parents are not willing to take her back. The petitioner filed divorce OP against the second respondent. The petitioner claims that he is not running a Cyber Cafe, but working as Xerox boy and earning Rs.5300/- per month only and during his cross-examination before the trial Court, he admitted to have own house and getting rents of Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent suppressed her occupation and income. But in the cross-examination, she admitted that in 2009 she worked in the company by name Stone Edge BPO Solutions on a salary of Rs.5,000/- and abandoned the job in the first of her MBA. After completion of first year of MBA, she joined in a company by name “Lodhi Prints Solution” and later she worked in NXT Vision and her salary is Rs.8000/-. However, she denied the allegation that she worked in NR Tele Systems Company and worked in Admin/HR in Care Hospital and drawn salary of Rs.45,000/-. However, the documents were summoned which are marked as Ex.X.1 and Ex.X2. Ex.X-1 is the letter submitted by the Managing Director of NR Tele Systems, wherein it shows that the second respondent worked in their company from November, 2015 to April, 2016 i.e. for six months on a salary of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The other document Ex.X.2 issued by General Manager, HR, Care Hospitals that the second respondent has been working as Junior PRE since 17.10.2016 on a monthly salary of Rs.17,000/- and net salary of Rs.15,308/-. Therefore, the evidence of both parties has been rightly considered by the trial Court and decided that the second respondent has got source of income to eke out her livelihood.

The second respondent though alleged that the petitioner is running Cyber Cafe Internet shop and getting income of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, but she failed to prove the same by any oral or documentary evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner is getting income of Rs.5300/- by working as Xerox operator. However, the trial Court taking into consideration of rental income of the petitioner has arrived at a conclusion that the second respondent is not entitled for maintenance, as she is capable to maintain herself and the third respondent being a child is rightly entitled for maintenance and accordingly, awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to him.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order does not, therefore, suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and the revision case is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.