Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/3144/2019 of Polisetti Lakshmi Naga Sundari, Vs P.SURYA PRASAD on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3144/2019 Between: Polisetti Lakshmi Naga Sundari, and Others
APHC010157242019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHACRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3144/2019
Between:
Polisetti Lakshmi Naga Sundari, and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)Others
AND
P Surya Prasad and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1.N N SOMENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2.
The Court made the following:
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:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to set-aside the order dated 28.03.2019 in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District to the extent of dismissing the maintenance of Rs.6,000/- granted to the petitioner No.1 and modifying the confirmation of award of maintenance of the petitioner No.2 from the dated of filing of the petition dated 11.10.2011 and to restore the order dated 02.02.2018 in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol.
2. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the respondent No.1 respectively and the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 has been performed on 21.05.2003. While, the matter being so, at the instigation of the respondent No.1 family members, the respondent No.1 had neglected the petitioner Nos.1 & 2, due to which, the petitioner No.1 left her matrimonial home and is staying along with her daughter i.e., the petitioner No.2 at her parents’ house. Thereafter, as the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, she had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, wherein the Court below vide its order dated 02.02.2018, was pleased to grant maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.1/wife and Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.2/daughter, which is payable by the respondent No.1 from the date of filing the suit in O.S.No.161 of 2011, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Narasapur. Challenging the order dated 02.02.2018, passed by the trial Court, the respondent No.1 has filed a Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Narasapur, wherein the revision Court vide its order dated 28.03.2019, had partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition by dismissing the award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- granted to the petitioner No.1/wife and by confirming the award of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month granted to the petitioner No.2/daughter and further modified the award as, the petitioner No.2 is entitled to seek maintenance from the respondent No.1 from the date of filing the petition i.e., from Aggrieved by the same, the order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the revision Court in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Narasapur is 11.10.2011.
being challenged in the present criminal petition.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the Revision Court in its order dated 23.03.2018 had dismissed the award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- granted to the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the petitioner had learnt tailoring and embroidery work and is earning sufficiently for maintaining herself and her daughter and further the respondent No.1 had spent an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- for the cases filed by him and as well as by the petitioner No.1., which is contrary to law and as such, the order dated 28.03.2019, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Narasapur is liable to be set-aside and requested to restore the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, in M.C.No.49 of 2016.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Revision Court after verifying the record therein has rightly dismissed the award of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and partly allowed the revision case, to the extent of petitioner No.3 by modifying the award that the petitioner No.2 is entitled to seek maintenance from the respondent No.1 from the date of filing the petition i.e., from 11.10.2021 and as such, requested to dismiss the criminal petition.
5. On a perusal of the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Narasapur in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018, it can be seen that the said revision petition is filed by the respondent No.1 herein challenging the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, in M.C.No.49 of 2016, on the sole ground that the petitioner No.1 is running a fancy shop business along with that she has learnt tailoring and embroidery work from which she is earning sufficient income for leading her life. Further, due to cases that has been instituted by both the parties against each other, the respondent No.1 herein incurred an amount of Rs.62,00,000/- of expenses.
6. But, however, basing on the averments made by the respondent No.1 herein in the counter affidavit filed in Crl.R.C.No. 12 of 2018, the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Narasapur, has partly allowed the revision case by dismissing the maintenance claim as against the petitioner No.1 and allowed the maintenance claim with regard to the petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the petitioner i.e., from 11.10.2011. Admittedly, the learned Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, has granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.2 which are payable by the respondent No.1 from the dated on filing the suit in O.S.No.161 whereas, on a revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein, the Court below has dismissed the maintenance amount granted to the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the petitioner has learnt tailoring and embroidery work from which the petitioner No.1 is earning sufficient income to maintain herself. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that except stating that the petitioner No.1 has learnt tailoring and embroidery work and is earning sufficiently for leading her life, the respondent No.1 had not adduced any documentary evidence in order to prove his contention.
7. Further, the trial Court also before dismissing the maintenance claim of the petitioner No.1 vide order dated 23.08.2018, has nowhere cited any documentary evidence adduced by the respondent No.1 herein and without questioning the same, dismissed the award of maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner No.1, which is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 is not properly reasoned, which is contrary to law and requires the interference of this Court.
8. As such, the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 is liable to be set aside by restoring the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, in M.C.No.49 of 2016.
9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 23.08.2018, passed by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur in Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2018 and the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, in M.C.No.49 of 2016 is hereby restored .
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
Date: 31.12.2024 SRT
__________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
SRT
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
Crl.P.No.3144 of 2019Date: 31.12.2024