* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1579 of 2004 % 05.08.2011 # 1. Kondaparthi Leelavathi @ Rajeshwari 2. Kondaparthi Naveen Kumar ….Petitioners Vs. $ 1. The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Kondaparthi Narender …. Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor for R.1. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani for R.2. <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1579 OF 2004 Date: 05-08-2011 Between: Kondaparthi Leelavathi and another. - - - Petitioners/ Petitioners. Versus The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1579 OF 2004 (on being mentioned) JUDGMENT This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. by the Revision Petitioners against order, dated 08-07- 2004, on the file of Judge Family Court, Warangal in M.C. No.10 of 2002, wherein the learned Judge dismissed the Maintenance Case. 2. The Petitioners herein filed the Maintenance Case against the second respondent (husband) herein claiming maintenance of Rs.2,500/- p.m. It is claimed by her that she is the legally wedded wife of the second respondent and the second petitioner is their son and after the birth of the second petitioner, the second respondent along with their parents ill-treated her demanding to pay additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and to arrange Bajaj Chetak scooter and finally the second respondent deserted both of them having means to maintain them and she is unable to maintain herself and the child who goes to school. 3. The respondent filed counter admitting their relationship but denying the allegations made in the petition and also contending that he filed O.P. No.59 of 1999 seeking divorce against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was granted interim maintenance of Rs.500/- p.m. and admittedly she never filed any petition seeking to enhance the maintenance amount of Rs.500/- granted earlier and prayed to dismiss this Revision. 4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the respondent he got himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. On behalf of the petitioners, she got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A-1. 5. In fact, the learned Judge, Family Court, Warangal dismissed the Maintenance Case on the ground that she was granted the interim maintenance of Rs.500/- in the O.P. and therefore she got no right to seek further maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the lower Court examined the matter properly and arrived at correct conclusions and whether its order is tenable or not? 7. It significant to note here that the Family Court dismissed the Maintenance Case mainly on the ground that interim maintenance of Rs.500/- was awarded in O.P.No.559 of 1999. 8. Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. as amended by Act 50 of 2001, which came into force with effect from 24-09-2001, read as under : “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parent : (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain, (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself; or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, or such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expense for proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.” Whereas, the words ‘not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole’ were omitted by Act 50 of 2001 with effect from 24-09-2001. Therefore, by virtue of the amendment, there is no limitation now to provide necessary maintenance under the provision to such person who is entitled for maintenance there under. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplates: 24. Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses proceedings. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner' s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable. 9. Emphatically, the question of maintenance is to be awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C provision after conducting necessary enquiry and recording necessary evidence and thoroughly examining the matter and subject to coming to a conclusion that there are grounds to do so. In other words, unless necessary measures in that behalf are taken exhaustively, the question of awarding necessary maintenance under the provision does not arise. 10. Both are independent provisions and one of them does not bar the application of the other and vice versa, whereas the question of awarding interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and so also the question of awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are to be determined on the basis of relevant material available having regard to the circumstances existing at the relevant point of time and also the scope of the same provisions. In any case, the maintenance awarded should be subject to the status of the husband and also the wife and therefore the amounts awarded under both the provisions towards her maintenance should not exceed the status of the husband to comply with the award. Therefore, the highest of the amounts awarded under both the provisions should be taken into consideration for the purpose of payment of relevant arrears by the husband to the wife as long as it is in force. If there is a time gap in between the two proceedings, relevant changes occurred can be gone into and similarly if relevant evidence was not considered while disposing of one of the proceedings, the same also can be considered while disposing of the other proceedings later. 11. Further, when once the main proceedings are disposed of the awarding of interim maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act will be ceased to have any effect except for the recovery of any arrears of maintenance if remained unpaid and in that view of the matter the proceedings covered by Section 125 Cr.P.C are quite different particularly because the order passed thereunder will continue to be in force even after the disposal of the case unless it is set aside in the corresponding revision. 12. Therefore, the observation of the learned Judge, Family Court at Warangal without touching the other relevant factors and simply dismissing the Maintenance Case on the ground that the interim maintenance was awarded in the divorce O.P. is not tenable. He should have separately gone into the question of quantum of maintenance on the ground of negligence and desertion alleged against the opposite party even though the interim maintenance was awarded in the other proceeding. 13. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 08-07-2011 passed in the Maintenance Case by the learned Judge, Family Court at Warangal and the matter is remanded to the Judge, Family Court, Warangal with a direction to dispose of the matter as per the observations made in the body of the order. Further as the matter has become very old, the learned Judge is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 05.08.2011 vjl Note: L.R. copy to be marked.