Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/299/2010 of Bangaru Raja Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2020
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.R.C.No.299 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2nd respondent and the father of respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 2 to 5 had filed Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2009 in F.C.O.P.No.418 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance against the petitioner
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.R.C.No.299 of 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner herein is the husband of the 2[nd] respondent and the father of respondents 3 to 5.
Respondents 2 to 5 had filed Crl.M.P.No.315 of 2009 in F.C.O.P.No.418 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance against the petitioner herein in the family Court at Visakhapatnam. The Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to each of respondents 3 to 5 herein and dismissed the application of the 2[nd]respondent herein on the ground that she was working as a home guard.
Aggrieved by the said order, dated 23.11.2009, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
This Court had granted stay of the said order on condition of the petitioner depositing half of the amount awarded by 10[th] of every succeeding month.
I have perused the petition filed by respondents 3 to 5 herein and the counter filed by them before the family Court, as well as the order of the family Court.
Respondents 2 to 5 had alleged in their petition that the petitioner herein was earning a salary of Rs.8000/- in the shipyard railway, and was getting a further amount of Rs.6,500/- per month as his share in the rental income of the houses belonging to his family and was also doing finance business where he was getting about Rs.8000/- per month. The respondents had contended that in view of his income of about Rs.22,500/- per month, they would be entitled for maintenance commensurate to his income.
The petitioner denied all these contentions. However, the petitioner admitted that he was working as Points man in Kakinada Sea Port and that he was allotted a share in the family property. He stated that the portion allotted to him was being utilised as residence of the family and as such he was not getting any further money.
The family Court took into account the fact that the 2[nd] respondent herein was working as a home guard and rejected the application of the 2[nd] respondent herein. The family Court, after consideration of these aspects, was pleased to award maintenance of Rs.1000/- per child. I do not find any error in the decision, which requires any interference by this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the liability of the petitioner to pay maintenance to respondents 3 to 5 will subsist only as long as the respondents do not attain the age of majority.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
31[st] December, 2020Js. Js.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Js.
RRR,J3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.R.C.No.299 of 2010
31[st] December, 2020