CRLP/2110/2009 of Kammaluri Uma Sankar Vs Kammaluri Revathi , Reddemma on 30 December 2010

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C.seeking to call for the records in MC.No. 1 of 2006, dated 15-7-2008on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Lakkireddipalle, Kadapa district as confirmed by the V-AdditionalSessions Judge, Rayachoti, Kadapa district, through order dated 10-2-2009 in Crl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 and to pass such other suitableorders as this Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances ofthe case.

2. The facts of the case are that the first respondent is thelegally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. At the time of marriage,her parents presented cash of Rs.one lakh besides 15 tulas of toldornaments towards lanchanalu. Subsequently during the third monthpregnancy, the petitioner herein started harassing the first respondentwithout any reason and subsequently necked out her and thereaftershe was forced to stay at the house of her parents and subsequentlyshe gave birth to the second respondent herein. It is stated that thepetitioner herein neglected to maintain the respondents 1 and 2herein. In spite of mediation, the petitioner has not taken therespondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner herein is havinglanded properties and he is doing business and earning Rs.two lakhsper annum. It is further stated that the petitioner herein filed a divorcepetition against the first respondent and obtained ex-parte divorcedecree against her. The respondents 1 and 2 filed MC.No. 1 of 2006

on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Lakkireddipalle, Kadapa district, seeking maintenance of Rs.3000/-and Rs.2000/- per month respectively towards their maintenance.

3. On the other hand, the petitioner herein denied theallegations mentioned in the petition except admitting the relationshipbetween the first respondent and the petitioner. It is averred in thecounter that the second respondent herein was not born to him. Heobtained divorce decree against the first respondent from the Court ofSenior Civil Judge, Madanapalle on 29-3-2004. Since the firstrespondent herself left the house of the petitioner, she is not entitledfor any maintenance. The petitioner herein is not having income ofRs.two lakhs per year from various sources as pleaded by the firstrespondent. Hence prayed to dismiss the maintenance case.

4. During the course of enquiry, the learned Magistrateexamined the first respondent herein as PW-1 and marked Exs.P1 toP4. On behalf of the petitioner herein, RWs.1 and 2 were examinedand Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidenceplaced on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrateallowed MC.No.1 of 2006 by an order dated 15-7-2008 and directedthe petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the first respondentherein and Rs.1000/- to the second respondent herein as theirmaintenance from the date of filing of the petition.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed Crl.R.P.No.50of 2008 on the file of the Court of V-Additional Sessions Judge,Rayachoti, Kadapa district contending that the learned Magistratefailed to take note of the divorce decree which was granted inOP.No.30 of 1999 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle,Chittoor district, in his favour and against the first respondent herein,which clearly shows that the first respondent herein herself haddeserted the petitioner herein. Had the trial considered Ex.R-1, itought to have declined to grant maintenance to the first respondentherein. The trial court ought to have noted that the first respondent herein lived with him for about two or three months as per her version.Further it is contended that the trial court wrongly concluded that theproperties stands in the name of his parents is not the properties ofthe petitioner herein. Further the trial court presumed that he ishaving sufficient means on the ground that his brother is an Engineer.Further the trial court without deciding his income had wronglyawarded Rs.1500/- per month to the first respondent herein andRs.1000/- per month to the second respondent herein.

7. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoti,Kadapa district, after hearing both parties on record and on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced byboth the parties, confirmed the order dated 15-7-2008 passed inMC.No. 1 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Lakkireddipalli and dismissed the Crl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 throughorder dated 10-2-2009.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 10-2-2009 passed inCrl.RP.No. 50 of 2008 by the V Additional Sessions Judge,Rayachoti, Kadapa district, confirming the order dated 15-7-2008passed in MC.No. 1 of 2008 by the Judicial magistrate of First Class,Lakkireddipalli, the present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-husband.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner called absentand no representation on his behalf. Perused the oral anddocumentary evidence placed on record and the concurrent orderspassed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court.

10. As can be seen from the order of the trial court as well asthe first appellate court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with theconcurrent order. The maintenance amount awarded by both thecourts below to the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be said to beexorbitant in these hard days of galloping double-digit inflation andskyrocketed economy. This Court is of the considered opinion thatboth the learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the petitionerherein and gave cogent reasoning for their conclusion. Hence, I donot see any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courtsbelow to interfere at this stage. However, the petitioner is directed topay the maintenance amounts as granted by both the courts below,which was confirmed by this court, together with arrears accruedthereon till date, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order.

11. In the result, the Criminal Petition fails and the same isaccordingly dismissed.

______________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

30-12-2010I s L

N B: Furnish CC tomorrowB/o. I s L

Circulation No. 30Date:30-12-2010Court Master: IsLComputer No.43