CRLRC/1811/2010 of Iradath Ali Khan, Vs Shafia Begum, on 29 December 2010

ORDER:

The revision petitioner is admittedly husband of the 1[st]respondent who filed D.V.C. No.90 of 2010 in the III MetropolitanMagistrate Court at Hyderabad against him. Though she prayed formaintenance of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per month for herself andfor the minor son respectively, the Magistrate granted total interimmaintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. As against the said order,the revision petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2010 before the IIAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By the impugnedorder, the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge reduced the interimmaintenance amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,500/- per month. Questioning the same, the revision petitioner filed this revision petition.

2) According to the revision petitioner, the 1[st] respondent is notentitled for any maintenance as there is no evidence of the revisionpetitioner having any source of income and also as the 1[st] respondentwas receiving 40% of the petitioner’s share out of the beneficial amounts disbursed by the Nizam Trust. It is contended by the 1[st] respondent’scounsel that previously the revision petitioner was paying maintenanceof Rs.4,000/- per month for the last 10 years and apart from the saidmaintenance amount, the 1[st] respondent was receiving 40% of the shareof the petitioner from Nizam Trust and that recently the revisionpetitioner gave letters to the Trust when the trust stopped making anypayments to the 1[st] respondent and that the revision petitioner alsostopped paying maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month which was beingdone previously. There is no dispute about the revision petitioner payingamounts previously and about the 1[st] respondent receiving amounts fromNizam Trust previously. As the matter now stands, all those amountsare stopped. Under Section 20(1)(d) of the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005, the aggrieved person as well as herchildren are entitled for maintenance in addition to an order ofmaintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C or any other law for the timebeing in force. Thus, the aggrieved person/wife and children are entitledto claim maintenance over and above the amounts to which they werealready receiving in any form. In the case on hand, due to action orinaction of the revision petitioner, the 1[st] respondent was deprived of theamounts which she was receiving from the revision petitioner as well asfrom the Nizam Trust. It cannot be said that the revision petitioner hasno capacity to pay maintenance amount. The revision petitioner is not asickly person. He is an able bodied male individual and he has to earnand maintain his wife and children. He cannot evade maintenance onflimsy ground of lack of proof of his income. When the revisionpetitioner was paying Rs.4,000/- per month previously, it cannot be saidthat the revision petitioner has no capacity to pay maintenance ofRs.4,500/- per month. The orders passed by the lower Courts are properand do not suffer from any infirmity.

3) In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

__________________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J.

Date:29.12.2010ksh