HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRL.R.C.NO.2246 OF 2005 DATED: 07.08.2009 BETWEEN: P.Chandrasekhar Reddy .. Petitioner And P.Mohana and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRL.R.C.NO.2246 OF 2005 ORDER: There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 24.07.2009 and again on 31.07.2009. On 31.07.2009 since the petitioner is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter, the interim stay granted on 29.12.2005 stands vacated and the matter is posted to today for dismissal. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the matter is taken up for disposal. This revision is directed against the order, dated 18.10.2005, in M.C.No.36 of 2004 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, whereby and whereunder the first respondent was granted a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month and the second respondent was granted a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of application. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the revision petitioner’s case is that the respondents could not show any documentary evidence to prove the income of the petitioner herein and that the lower Court failed to see that the first respondent herself left the matrimonial home without informing the petitioner herein and without proper reasons. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that the grant of maintenance to the respondents is excessive and on higher side. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the Court below for the sake of convenience. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The first petitioner is a legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage took place at Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupathi on 08.03.2001 as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent is inter-caste marriage. Further the case of the petitioner is that the respondent was already married and he blessed with two children and his first wife died in a motor accident. The respondent has concealed about the first marriage and married the first petitioner. Since the time of marriage, the parents of the first petitioner presented 50 grms of Gold and Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry and presented 30 sovereigns of gold to the first petitioner. It is also alleged that the sister and mother of the respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- from the parents of the first petitioner and started harassing her. It is also alleged that when the first petitioner pregnant the respondent and his sister pressurized her to undergo abortion. Due to the advise of the doctors the first petitioner did not opt for abortion. The first petitioner delivered the second petitioner on 27.05.2002. Even after the birth of the second petitioner, the respondent did not turn up to see the child in spite of intimation to him. The respondent, his sister and mother used to torture the first petitioner mentally and physically demanding additional dowry. The first petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, East Police Station, Tirupathi and registered a Crime No.376 of 2002 under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on 07.10.2002. The police after completing investigation laid charge sheet against the respondent and others in C.C.No.139 of 2003. The respondent also filed O.P.No.117 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, but the same was dismissed for default. The respondent also addicted to bad habits and consumed alcohol, gambling and used to beat the first petitioner indiscriminately. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondent without any reasonable cause deserted the petitioners and they are unable to maintain themselves. The petitioners’ further case is that the respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- per month from egg business and Rs.2,00,000/- per month from big poultry and also getting Rs.10,000/- per month towards rents. The respondent filed counter admitting that he married the first petitioner on 08.03.2001 at Tirumala, and that the marriage was registered before the Sub Registrar, Tirupathi. The respondent’s specific case is that he had taken the first petitioner to doctor Bhuvaneswari for medical check up on two occasions, when the first petitioner was pregnant. His further case is that on 12.01.2002 when he went to Chennai in connection with the sale of poultry eggs, the first petitioner left the matrimonial house without his consent and on 14.01.2002 he went to the house of the parents of the first petitioner and requested her to come back along with him to Chittoor, but the first petitioner refused to accompany the respondent. His further case is that again he tried to bring the first petitioner, but without any reasonable cause she stayed with her parents. A panchayat was conducted in March, 2002, but resulted in vain. Even after the birth of the second petitioner, the respondent tried for amicable settlement, but the parents of the first petitioner imposed a condition that the respondent should transfer his property in favour of the first petitioner. In October, 2002 another panchayat was convened in the presence of mediators viz. Velkur Srikanth and Brahmananda Reddy of Gundlakattamanchi and Sri Savarana of Chittoor, but all his efforts failed since the first petitioner refused to join the respondent. It is also the case of the respondent that though previously he is doing poultry business and he sustained heavy loss in the said business. It is also contended that he is ready to pay Rs.500/- to each petitioner, if the first petitioner is not joined to him. On behalf of the petitioners, 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and one N.C.Mahesh was examined as PW.2. Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, respondent himself examined as RW1 and another witness examined as RW.2. The Court below framed the following points: 1. Whether the petitioners are not having sufficient means or source of income to maintain themselves? 2. Whether the respondent refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner? 3. Whether the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for maintenance from the respondent? If so, to what amount? Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners 1 and 2 are living separately. It is also not in dispute that the respondent filed O.P.No.117 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said petition was dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent is inter-caste marriage. The case of the petitioners is that since the respondent, his sister and mother harassing the first petitioner for additional dowry, she is residing separately. The specific case of the respondent is that without any reasonable cause the first petitioner has been residing separately. PW.1 deposed that the respondent used to demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and that the mother of the respondent also used to harass her and insult her. PW.1 deposed that she has no property and she is unable to maintain herself. It is also deposed that the respondent is running a poultry business at Chittoor and getting income of Rs.4 lakhs per month and rents of Rs.3,000/- per month from the buildings. According to PW.2, he knows both the parties and tried to settle the dispute between the first petitioner and the respondent and in that mediation the respondent agreed to look after the petitioners properly and on the request of the mother of the first petitioner respondent executed a deed to look after the first petitioner properly and took away the first petitioner on the next day. It is also his evidence that six months later, the first petitioner informed that the respondent was failed to look after him properly. The respondent himself examined as RW1. He admitted that he executed document agreeing to look after the petitioners properly. Ex.P.5 is the said agreement. Though allegations and counter allegations have been made, the respondent has denied the allegations, but admitted execution of original of Ex.P.5 itself shows that the respondent promised to look after the petitioners properly. It shows that when the respondent promised to look after the petitioners well, the first petitioner went along with the respondent. Now the point for consideration is that whether the harassment by the respondent is with regard to the dowry or not? The fact remains that the first petitioner is residing separately. It appears that there is sufficient reason for her to reside separately. RW.2 was examined on behalf of the respondent. RW.2 stated that no dowry was paid at the time of marriage of first petitioner and respondent. He has also deposed that he is also tried to clear disputes between them. The evidence on record also shows that the respondent was doing poultry business and he is having immoveable property from which he is getting rents. Though, he deposed that he sustained loss, but no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. No documents have been marked on behalf of the respondent. When the respondent is having poultry business, he ought to have file documents to show the income, which was getting from the said business. It is clear from the evidence that the first petitioner was subjected to harassment and the respondent executed a document on 22.06.2001 under Ex.P.5 and promised that there would not be any harassment by him or by his other family members and thereafter the petitioners joined the respondent. This circumstance itself shows that the respondent harassed the first petitioner and that there are no reasons to say that the petitioners are residing separately without any reasonable cause. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves and that the respondent having sufficient properties and means failed to maintain the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi is based on evidence and justifiable and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dated: 07.08.2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRL.R.C.NO.2246 OF 2005 DATED: 07.08.2009