IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4733 of 2009 Between: Pappoppula Venkata Rama Kiran .. Petitioner AND Smt. Pappoppula Kanaka Lakshmi and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Rudresh Desh Pande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/2nd respondent. 2. The order under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Criminal M.P. No.2856 of 2008 in D.V.C. No.28 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, dated 23-06- 2009 led the aggrieved husband to file this criminal petition to quash the said order in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The 1st respondent herein claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and claiming to have been subjected to humiliation and harassment physically and mentally by the husband and the members of his family, filed the domestic violence case seeking protection from all the respondents to the case. The 1st respondent herein also filed Criminal M.P. No.2856 of 2008 for interim relief pending determination of the main case contending that she was unable to maintain herself, as her share of property in her parents’ family was already given in the shape of cash to the husband and his family members who misappropriated the same and as she is only a house wife without any avocation or income. The claim was resisted by the husband contending that it was the demand from the 1st respondent herein to him to come as an illatom son-in-law that led to the estrangement and in fact, he purchased nearly 20 sovereigns of gold for the wife due to affection. The husband claimed to be not employed and not having any business, while the wife has property worth Rs.30,00,000/- in her name and is also earning Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent from the house property. 4. The trial Court passed the impugned order finding that the marriage between the parties is admitted and the questions of any harassment have to be decided only during the main enquiry. The trial Court also opined the question of jurisdiction to be also one to be decided during the rendering of final order and either party did not file any prima facie material to show the ownership of any properties or any income therefrom to the other side. Therefore, the husband has the prima facie liability to maintain the wife, which cannot be disowned on the ground of any means which the wife has to maintain herself. As against the claim for Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance, the trial Court considered it just, under the circumstances of the case, to award a monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/-. 5. The said grant of interim maintenance was challenged in the criminal petition and the husband contended that while the wife has house property worth Rs.20,00,000/-, he has no businesses as alleged by the wife to enable him to pay Rs.6,000/- per month. The justification for seeking interim maintenance and the quantum granted were not properly appreciated and hence, he desired the order to be reversed. 6. At the time of issuance of notice before admission to the 1st respondent wife on 07-07-2009, the impugned order was subjected to interim suspension subject to the husband depositing arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of Criminal M.P. No.2856 of 2008 till the date of deposit at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and further subject to his depositing or his paying directly to the 1st respondent Rs.4,000/- towards interim maintenance by 15th of every month during pendency of these proceedings. 7. Both the learned counsel have stated that the interim order is faithfully carried into effect and the husband is paying monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to the wife since then till now. The contentions of both parties about the means of the other are, as stated by the trial Court, not substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence for either side. The facts available for consideration of the trial Court or this Court are only those stated on oath against oath. It was under such circumstances that the trial Court fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per month at half of what was claimed by the wife basing on the ex facie responsibility of the husband to maintain the wife. While an element of guess and estimate becomes inevitable in such estimate, it is the same difficulty that led this Court to consider about one-third of what was claimed to be a reasonable sum towards interim maintenance pending this criminal petition. The order continued to be in force for more than two years and the husband did not find it difficult to comply with and the wife did not approach this Court with any complaint of any gross deficiency of such sum to meet her minimum needs of maintenance. 8. Therefore, the interim order can be made the final order in the main petition in the interests of justice and hence, the order in Criminal M.P. No.2856 of 2008 in D.V.C. No.28 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, dated 23-06-2009 is modified by restricting the monthly maintenance awarded thereunder to Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) till disposal of the main domestic violence case. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-11-2011 Svv