HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1448 of 2008 DATE: 09-02-2010 Between: Smt. M. Krishnaveni Petitioner And The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor And another Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.1448 of 2008 ORDER: This Revision Case has been filed challenging the order, dated 30-06-2008 passed in M.C.No.91 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the lower Court. The petitioner herein by name M. Krishnaveni is the daughter of late M. Prem Das. The second respondent herein is the mother of the petitioner and wife of the said Prem Das. Late Prem Das was working as Board Operator in Government Central Press at Chenchalguda. While he was in service, he died on 19-10-2008 leaving behind his wife (second respondent) and three daughters namely M. Shyamala Devi, M. Usha Kiran, M. Krishna Veni and a son by name M. Srinivas. The only son of late Prem Das has been suffering from mental illness. In case of death of an employee while in service, the Government of Andhra Pradesh envisaged a scheme to provide job to anyone eligible member of the family of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds with a view to see that the family is not thrown out into the streets. However the person who will be appointed on compassionate grounds has to give an undertaking that he/she will maintain other family member of the deceased, who are unable to maintain themselves. Since the respondent M. Krishna Veni was eligible for job and as she promised to maintain the petitioner and other family members, she was provided job as Book Binder in Government Printing and Stationery Department in 1999 on compassionate grounds. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent promised to give half of the salary to her and her two daughters and son and that she also promised to perform the marriage of her two daughters. It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the promise given by the respondent, she had given consent and only after giving consent, the respondent has been given appointment. The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondent married one Chandra Mohan in the year 2001 and since then she is totally neglecting her, her daughters and son and failed to keep up her promise. The petitioner further submits that she has been getting Rs.2,000/- towards pension and with such meager amount, she is unable to provide basic needs to her children. It is also her case that she has to pay Rs.1,800/- towards house rent, electricity and water charges and that she is a sickly woman and that she has to spend Rs.1,800/- towards medicines for her treatment and Rs.600/- to provide regular treatment to her son. It is also her case that her two daughters are unmarried and unemployed. It is also her case that the respondent is earning Rs.8,000/- per month towards her salary and therefore, she sought a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- towards the monthly maintenance to herself and her two daughters and son. 4. The respondent filed counter admitting her relationship with the petitioner. She has also admitted that the petitioner has got two other daughters and a son, who is suffering from mental illness. The respondent, however, denied that she promised to look after the petitioner and her two daughters and son. It is also her case that till her marriage, she was giving her entire salary to the petitioner and after marriage she got two children and she has to look after her husband and children and in the above circumstances, she is unable to pay anything to the petitioner. It is also her case that her husband is only a daily wage worker and that he is a drinker and she is unable to meet the expenses of her family. She denied a suggestion that she is earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also her case that the petitioner is not paying anything towards rent and as she is getting pension, she is able to maintain herself, her two daughters and the son. 5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner herself is examined as PW-1 and another witness is examined as PW-2 on her behalf and Exs.P-1 to P-4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, she herself is examined as RW-1 and Ex.R-1 is marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence and the material on record, allowed the petition in part directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Case has been filed. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent has two daughters and that her husband is a daily wage worker and that her salary is not sufficient to meet her own family expenses. It is also argued that the petitioner has been residing in the house of her elder brother’s son and there is no need to pay any house rent and that her two daughters are working as Fashion Designers and earning huge income and that the petitioner is also getting a family pension and in the above circumstances, there is no need to pay maintenance to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is getting a pension of Rs.4,000/- only and that she has to pay house rent and maintain her two daughters and son, who is mentally ill, and that the petitioner herself has been suffering from BP and other ailments and that she has to meet the medical expenses to herself and her son and that the other two daughters are not earning anything and they are unmarried. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the only pint that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get any amount towards maintenance from the respondent? 9. The facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that late Prem Das was working as Board Operator in Government Central Press, Chenchalguda. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the elder daughter of late Prem Das. The petitioner is having another two daughters and a son who is mentally ill. It is also not in dispute that the respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Government Printing Press after the demise of her father. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of the petitioner (PW-1) that herself and other two daughters have given consent for the appointment of the respondent in Government Printing and Stationery Department. It appears that every employee has to give undertaking that he/she would look after the other family members of the deceased employee. The respondent was married and she has two sons. According to her, her husband was a daily wage worker. She filed Ex.R-1, salary certificate, which shows that her gross salary is Rs.8,477/- per month. The only contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the other two daughters of the petitioner are working as Fashion Designers and they are earning huge amount, but the same has been denied by PW-1. The evidence of the petitioner (PW-1) shows that the other two daughters have studied fashion designing course. RW-1 herself admitted that she has not filed any documentary evidence to show that her other two sisters are doing job and earning anything. Thus admittedly there no evidence to show that the other two daughters of the petitioner are earning. Though it is suggested that PW-1 is residing with her brother, that does not mean that PW-1 can permanently reside in the house of her brother. The medical bills filed by the petitioner go to show that herself and her son, who is suffering from mental illness, require regular medicines and treatment. Admittedly, the respondent has been doing a permanent job and earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month and her husband is also working as daily wage worker. Thus two family members of the respondent are earning. 10. As far as the petitioner’s family is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that anyone of the family members is working and earning. Even otherwise we are concerned with the petitioner, she is aged about 56 years and she require regular medicine and treatment and has to maintain her son, who is mentally ill. Even if she is getting a pension of Rs.4,000/- per month, the same may not be sufficient for her to maintain herself, and her son, who is mentally ill and to meet their medical expenses. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the financial position of the parties and their basic requirements, I am of the view that the order passed by the lower Court is perfectly justified and there is no need to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order of the lower Court in all respects. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 09-02-2010 YCR