Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/570/2010 of RAYASAM MALYADRI, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. Vs THE STATE OF A.P., REP. BY P.P., HYDERABAD, AND ANR. on 31 December 2020
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2010 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 10.02.2009 in M.C.No.33 of 2008 passed by the Family Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole. The 2nd respondent herein moved M.C.No.33 of 2008 in the
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Crl.R.C.No.570 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 present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 10.02.2009 in M.C.No.33 of 2008 passed by the Family Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.
The 2[nd] respondent herein moved M.C.No.33 of 2008 in the Family Court at Ongole for maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioner herein, who is her husband, harassed her after her marriage and refused to maintain her. The 2[nd] respondent also contended that she is unable to work due to stress and illness caused by the petitioner herein, and since he was earning Rs.4000/- per month, she would be entitled for maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month.
The petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit denying these allegations contending that he was only earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month as a boy in a hospital, and as such, he was not in a position to maintain the 2[nd] respondent.
The family Court, after considering the contentions raised by both sides, had held that since the petitioner was working as a compounder in a hospital, he would be held to be in a position to maintain his wife, and awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2[nd] respondent herein.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner is before this Court.
Taking into account the fact that a sum of Rs.1000/- per month would be a very reasonable figure and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is working as a compounder in a hospital, it cannot be said that the award of maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the 2[nd]respondent is unreasonable or excessive.
In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
31[st] December, 2020Js.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Js.
RRR,J3
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Crl.R.C.No.570 of 2010
31[st] December, 2020