IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 1730 and 1782 of 2007 CRL.P.No.1730 of 2007 Between: K.Savitramma . .Petitioner And K.Venkatalaxmi Narayana Gupta and another .. Respondents CRL.P.No.1782 of 2007 Between: K.Savitramma . .Petitioner And K.Venkatalaxmi Narayana Gupta and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos : 1730 AND 1782 of 2007 COMMON ORDER : These two petitions are filed questioning the common order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in C.R.P.Nos.30 of 2006 and 31 of 2006. 2) Divorced wife is the petitioner. She filed M.C. No.12 of 2005 against her previous husband, who is the 1st respondent for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoni. After enquiry, the Magistrate by the order dated 16.03.2006 granted maintenance of Rs.1,250/- per month to the petitioner from the 1st respondent. As against the said order, the 1st respondent filed C.R.P. No.30 of 2006 and the petitioner filed C.R.P. No.31 of 2006 before the Sessions Court and both the revision petitions were disposed of by the II Additional Sessions Judge at Adoni. 3) There is no dispute about previous relationship of the petitioner and the 1st respondent as wife and husband. Due to some differences, they were living separately. They have no children. On 07.01.1987, both the parties entered into maintenance agreement, by which both the parties agreed for payment of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the petitioner by the 1st respondent throughout the petitioner’s life time. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed O.P. No.6 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Adoni for divorce under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner remained exparte in O.P. No.6 of 1987. The Sub Court, Adoni by decree dated 20.08.1987 allowed the petition dissolving marriage between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the Sub Court as per order dated 02.11.1987 in I.A. No.248 of 1987 incorporated clause relating to payment of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month by the 1st respondent to the petitioner for her life. The 1st respondent is working in Life Insurance Corporation of India, getting more than Rs.23,000/- per month as salary. Contending that she is unable to maintain herself with paltry sum of Rs.500/- per month because of efflux of time from the date of agreement and inflation, the petitioner filed maintenance case before the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4) It is contended that when maintenance of Rs.500/- per month was agreed by the parties in the year 1987, it cannot remain static even after decades. No doubt because of efflux of time from 1987 and also because of inflation, the amount of Rs.500/- per month became a pittance and with the said amount the petitioner who belongs to middle class may not be in a position to maintain herself. But, the question is whether the petitioner approached right forum for grant of maintenance by way of enhancing the amount of Rs.500/- per month. When the Sub Court, Adoni incorporated clause relating to payment of maintenance in the amended decree in O.P. No.6 of 1987 in marital proceedings between the parties, proper remedy of the petitioner is to approach the same Court for enhancement of maintenance amount, if law so provides. Certainly the petitioner cannot approach a Magistrate and invoke jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of fresh maintenance to her when there is already an order of marital Court for maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Though the dispute may not be with regard to enhancement of maintenance, certainly the controversy is with regard to the forum, which the petitioner has to approach for necessary maintenance. I find that the petitioner approached a wrong forum by applying under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Adoni is justified in law and facts in setting aside the order of maintenance granted by the Magistrate. 5) In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate Court as per law for appropriate relief regarding enhancement of maintenance. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU November 24, 2009 KSH