IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD. WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.222 of 2009 Between: Shaikh Abdul Subhan, s/o Abdul Sattar …Petitioner A n d Shaikh Shaheen, d/o Allabaksh and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Revision Case No.222 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 10.12.2008 in MC No.16 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda, wherein, the said maintenance case filed by the respondents herein was allowed directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.500/- per month to the 2nd respondent. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are wife and son of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the marriage of first respondent with the petitioner took place on 12.06.2004 at Nalgonda. According to the respondents, at the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- was given as dowry to the petitioner, besides 8 tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver ornaments and house hold articles wroth Rs.50,000/-. The first respondent alleges that since six months after the marriage, the petitioner started harassing her for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and he also sold away the silver and gold ornaments. The 2nd respondent herein was born on 21.06.2005. Even after the birth of the child, the harassment continued. The first respondent’s father filed a complaint with Women PS, Nalgonda. The police advised the petitioner herein to take back the first respondent, but he did not heed to their advice. Subsequently, the first respondent gave a complaint to the police at Markapuram. Thereupon, the petitioner took the respondents back after receiving Rs.10,000/- and one tula of gold, but the harassment of the first respondent continued. The petitioner has sent the first respondent out of the house retaining the child forcibly. On a complaint given by the first respondent, police restored the custody of the child to the mother-first respondent. It is further averred that the petitioner herein is having huge property worth rupees one crore and is earning Rs.50,000/- per month towards rent and he is not providing any maintenance. On 01.03.2008 first respondent gave notice to the petitioner demanding him to take them back or to provide maintenance. The petitioner got issued a reply opposing the claim. 4. The petitioner herein filed a counter before the Family Court alleging that the first respondent herself went to her parental house in May 2005 and did not return to the matrimonial home even after birth of the child and the father of first respondent refused to send his daughter with the petitioner and insisted that the petitioner should also stay with them at Mallepalli. On the advise of the police, the first respondent joined the conjugal society of the petitioner. As the petitioner refused to shift to Mallepalli and insisted that he should stay with her parents at Markapuram, first respondent again left the company of the petitioner. The mediations to get back the respondents also did not succeed. On 14.04.2008 also the petitioner herein issued a notice to the first respondent to rejoin the company. 5. The first respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and Ex.P.1 salary certificate was marked. The petitioner examined himself as RW.1 and examined two other witnesses as RWs.2 and 3. On consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Judge, Family Court awarded maintenance as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 6. It is not disputed that the first respondent is the wife and 2nd respondent is the son of the petitioner. The material on record would go to show that there has been estrangement between the parties since about six months after the marriage. The petitioner alleges that the first respondent herself left the matrimonial home without any justification, as the petitioner refused to shift himself to Mallepalli leaving his parents at Markapuram. The first respondent on the other hand would contend that at the time of marriage Rs.2,00,000/- dowry was given besides 8 tulas of gold, 20 tulas of silver ornaments and house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner has sold away the gold and silver articles and started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and subjected first respondent to harassment in that regard and the said harassment continued even after the birth of the 2nd respondent and ultimately, she was sent out of the house and there being no alternative, she was forced to take shelter in her parents’ house. From the evidence on record the learned Judge, Family Court recorded a finding that the first respondent hardly lived in the matrimonial home for six months and during that time she was subjected to all sorts of harassment for an additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner even after the birth of the 2nd respondent. The first respondent was therefore justified in living away from the petitioner and seek separate maintenance as he neglected to maintain the respondents. The above finding of the lower Court does not call for any interference. 7. Regarding the means of the petitioner and first respondent, it is not the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is having any property or independent means of income. Though the first respondent alleged that the petitioner is having huge property worth more than one crore and is earning Rs.50,000/- towards rent per month, no evidence is adduced to substantiate the said plea. Ex.P.1 house tax valuation certificate shows that there are two houses in the name of one S.A.Sattar, who is the father of the petitioner herein. The said house property cannot therefore be treated as belonging to the petitioner. The fact however remains that the petitioner is residing with his parents and certainly he would be enjoying a portion of income derived from the said property owned by his father. The very contention of the petitioner is that he insisted upon living with his parents which first respondent did not relish. The petitioner does not therefore have to incur any expenditure for his own sustenance or residence. On the other hand, the first respondent and the child, 2nd respondent are left at the mercy of her parents. The petitioner is bound to provide adequate maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2, who are none else than his wife and son. He claimed that he is working as Lab Technician and earning Rs.1,500/- per month, but he has not produced any salary certificate to that effect before the Family Court. The learned Judge, Family Court has therefore estimated the income of the petitioner herein at Rs.5000/- per month. In the present revision proceedings, the petitioner produced a certificate purported to have been given by Dr.Aminul, Sudha Ortho Nursing Home, Markapuram to the effect that the petitioner is working as Chemist compounder on a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month since 05.04.2009. The said document cannot be looked into at the present stage for want of proof of its contents. If really, the petitioner was earning only Rs.1500/- as Lab Technician as contended by him, there was no reason as to why he has not produced any salary certificate before the Family Court nor examined his employer. He examined RWs.2 and 3, who claimed to have attended the marriage of petitioner and first respondent. According to RW.2, the petitioner herein was working as Lab Technician and earning Rs.1500/- per month. He could not however say the name of the Lab where RW.1 was working and he admits that he does not know about the family affairs of RW.1. RW.2 is the brother-in-law of RW.1. It is suggested to RW.3 that RW.1’s father and brother are running National X-ray Lab. RW.1 denied the suggestion and deposed that he is working in Aparna X-ray Lab on a salary of Rs.1500/- per month. If that is so, nothing prevented the petitioner herein to examine his employer in Aparna X-ray Lab and produce salary certificate. Further he admits that his father died. When that is so, he would have certainly inherited the share in the estate of his father. He says that he does not know if his father owns 20 mulgies and there is also a hospital therein. He is evasive that he cannot say that the property mentioned in Ex.P.1 belongs to his father. He does not even know whether his father is residing in rented house or in a house of his own. The answers given by RW.1 in the cross- examination would only reveal his evasive nature exposing himself as a person having no regard for truth. 8. Having regard to the basic requirements to the respondents 1 and 2 for a decent livelihood commensurate with their status and in the background of ever increasing cost of living and lack of any independent means of income for the first respondent and in view of the assets and income of the petitioner herein, it cannot be said that the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month granted to the first respondent and Rs.500/- per month granted to the 2nd respondent is excessive and unreasonable. The impugned order of the learned Judge, Family Court, does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.08.2009 bss