IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.37 OF 2005 Between: K.Prabhakar ..... PETITIONER AND 1. K.Samatha 2. Tinku 3.The State of A.P., rep.by through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS The Court delivered the following : J U D G M E N T: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 08.12.2004 passed in M.C. No.23 of 2002 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad (East & North), Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder the first petitioner was awarded Rs.1000/- and the second petitioner was awarded Rs.2000/- per month towards maintenance. 2. Hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 3. The first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The second petitioner is their minor son. The marriage of the first petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 11.02.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of the first petitioner presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash and motor cycle worth of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. At the time of delivery, the first petitioner went to her parents’ house with the permission of the respondent. After the birth of the second petitioner, though informed, the respondent did not come to the house of the parents of the first petitioner. The first petitioner and her parents requested the respondent to take back the petitioners, but he neglected them and refused to maintain them. The petitioners are unable to maintain themselves. The respondent is working as Sub-Inspector of Police in C.I.S.F. and drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second petitioner. 4. The respondent filed counter and denied the allegations made by the petitioners. It is denied that the parents of the first petitioner paid him dowry and presented Hero Honda Motor Cycle. His specific case is that he purchased motorcycle even prior to his marriage on hire purchase basis and that he has been paying monthly installments from his salary. It is also his case that the first petitioner left matrimonial home on her own accord and subsequently did not join him even after issuing legal notice. It is also his case that he met all the expenses at the time of delivery. It is also his case that the first petitioner filed a case against him under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the same is pending as C.C. No.723 of 2002 on the file of the Special Excise Court, Ranga Reddy District. His further case is that at present he is drawing net salary of Rs.3,258/- and that he has to maintain his unmarried sisters and parents. It is also his case that he is ready to pay Rs.500/- to the second petitioner. 5. The first petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. On behalf of the respondents Rws-1 to 3 were examined and salary certificate was marked as Ex.R1. 6. The learned Magistrate, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and that the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners and directed the respondent to pay Rs.1000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2000/- to the second petitioner per month towards their maintenance. Challenging the same, this revision has been filed. 7. As there was no representation on behalf of the respondent (petitioner in R.C.) on 21.08.2009, the matter was adjourned to 28.08.2009, from which date it was adjourned to 11.09.2009. Again as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 11.09.2009 the matter was directed to be listed today for Judgment. Even today also none appeared for the petitioner nor there is any representation made on his behalf. 8. As seen from the grounds of appeal the main contention of the respondent is that he is having old parents and unmarried sisters and that after deductions he is getting net salary of Rs.5000/- per month and that he never refused and neglected to maintain the petitioners. 9. As seen from the evidence on record it is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the second petitioner is the minor son of respondent. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent was performed on 11.02.2002 as per the Hindu rites and customs. It is also not in dispute that till seven month pregnancy the first petitioner was with the respondent and later went to her parents’ house. It is also not in dispute that when the first petitioner has begotten the second petitioner, the respondent has not visited the house of the parents of the first petitioner and since then he has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. It is also the version of the first petitioner that at the time of the marriage, the respondent was paid Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry and Rs.50,000/- for purchasing the vehicle. According to PW.1, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent before the marriage to enable him to purchase the vehicle. 10. The respondent is examined as RW-1. It is his case that the first petitioner has been working in Nice Constructions and Designers as Drafts Woman and earning Rs.5000/- per month. It is also his case that he got issued a legal notice to the first petitioner asking her to come and join him and that she has filed a criminal complaint against him under Section 498-A I.P.C., and later he filed a petition seeking divorce. 11. RW.2 is the maidservant, who is working in the house of RW.1. According to her she used to attend household work in the house of RW.1 between 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and from 4.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Her further case is that the parents of the respondent and his two unmarried sisters were living in the same house. She says that there were no disputes between the first petitioner and the respondent and that the first petitioner went to her parents’ house for delivery and had taken her gold ornaments and other valuables. She admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the domestic affairs of the first petitioner and the respondent, since she is only a part time worker. Naturally she would not be present in the house of the respondent beyond the period of her working hours and she has no personal knowledge about the domestic affairs of the first petitioner. Her evidence does not come to the rescue of RW.1. RW.3 is the mother of the respondent. According to her, the parents of the first petitioner did not present any dowry to her son and they did not invite her on the occasion of naming ceremony (Namakaranam) of the second petitioner. It is not the case of Rw-1 that he was not informed about the naming ceremony. It is also not his case that his mother was not invited for naming ceremony of the second petitioner. It was suggested to Rw-3 that Pw-1 and her parents invited her to Namakaranam function. Rw-3 also admitted that her another son is working as constable. 12. As seen from the above evidence, it is clear that after the first petitioner came to her parents house for delivery and after she gave birth to the second petitioner, the respondent appears to have neglected the petitioners and therefore, the first petitioner is forced to stay in the house of her parents. The subsequent developments such as exchange of legal notices, filing of police complaint by PW.1 etc., show the strained relationship between the parties. According to PW.1, Rs.50,000/- amount was paid to the respondent even prior to their marriage to enable the respondent to purchase motorcycle. The respondent though denied the same, did not adduce any documentary evidence to show that he purchased motorcycle on hire purchase basis. Even if he had purchased motorcycle on hire purchase basis, the same does not disprove the version of PW.1 that the respondent was paid Rs.50,000/- prior to their marriage. 13. As seen from the evidence, it is not in dispute that the gross salary of the respondent is Rs.9,600/-. According to him, he has been paying Provident Fund Rs.6000/- per month. The amount of contribution towards provident fund can be increased or reduced according to the needs of an employee. Therefore, merely, because, he is paying Rs.6,000/- per month towards Provident Fund, it cannot be said that he has no means to maintain the petitioners. The evidence on record also shows that after the birth of the second petitioner, the respondent never tried to take back the petitioners except issuing legal notice. It is clear that since the respondent did not take back the petitioners, they are forced to stay at the parents’ house of first petitioner. It is clear that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. As far as the allegation of the respondent that the first petitioner has been doing some job and earning Rs.5000/- is concerned, absolutely there is no evidence in support of the version of respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have no means to maintain themselves and they are unable to maintain themselves. It is also clear that the respondent who is working as Sub-Inspector in C.I.S.F. is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners. Merely because he has to maintain his sisters and his old parents, it cannot be said that he has no means to maintain the petitioners. The evidence of Rws-2 and 3 also do not disprove the contentions of the petitioners that they are unable to maintain themselves or that the respondent has means to maintain the petitioners, wherein in a case it is proved that the respondent has means but neglected and refused to maintain his wife and minor child who are unable to maintain themselves and there is nothing to say that wife has been residing separately without any reasonable cause, the respondent is bound to provide maintenance to his wife and minor children. In view of the above, I see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. 14. Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J September 18, 2009. YVL