CRLRC/555/2024 of S VIJAYA BHASKARA RAJU Vs CHAMARTHI NIRMALA on 6 March 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner–husband, aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.3247 of 2023 in M.C.No.30 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was granted in favour of the respondent–wife.

2. Heard Sri T.D. Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. R. Sudha Rani, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the record.

3. The case in nutshell is that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 13.08.2021 according to Hindu rites and customs. After a short period of cohabitation, disputes arose. The respondent–wife alleges that the petitioner–husband neglected her, refused to maintain conjugal life, demanded additional dowry, and left her at her parental house. She states that she left her employment after marriage at the insistence of the petitioner and is fully dependent on her parents. The petitioner–husband, on the other hand, contends that the respondent–wife voluntarily deserted him without cause and is maintaining alleged improper relationships with others. He denies any demand for dowry and submits that his income is limited and he has family responsibilities.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive and arbitrary, and that the respondent–wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home. He further contended that the petitioner has limited income and heavy family obligations, and is therefore unable to pay the maintenance awarded.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the respondent–wife has no independent source of income, is dependent on her parents, and was compelled to leave her employment after marriage at the insistence of the petitioner–husband. She would further submit that the respondent–wife is entitled to interim maintenance.

6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the material on record and that the interim maintenance granted is reasonable. No interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, the scope of inquiry is limited to determine whether the wife is unable to maintain herself and whether the husband has the capacity to provide maintenance. In the present case, the respondent–wife has no independent income, whereas the petitioner–husband is gainfully employed. The Court further noted that interim maintenance is intended to meet the basic needs of the wife during the pendency of proceedings and to ensure her survival. Considering the income of the petitioner–husband and the needs of the respondent–wife, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court is reasonable and justified.

8. In view of the above, the Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order of the learned Magistrate warranting interference. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, without granting any adjournments by mere asking in a casual way. Both parties are at liberty to raise all contentions during the enquiry, and the Court shall decide the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 07.03.2026 KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 555/2024

Date 07.03.2026 KKV