Veeturi Vijayalakshmi, Wo v. Uma Mahesh Aged about

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRI K.HARIHAR BABU Counsel for the ResPondent No.2 :PUBLIC PROSEGUTOR [rG] The Court made the following : ORDER I , : i I i i I I I I i I i I I j i I ; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKAF AMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.767 OF 2 rys ORDER This revision case has been filed assailing the order dated

04.05.2023 rn [r/l C No.07 of 2019 on the file of the Jrroge, Principal Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Diddi Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.2-State

3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the p,arlies shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the CoUr: below in the maintenance proceedings-i.e., the petitioner (vvife) and the respondent (husband).

4. The ltetitioner initiated proceedings under Seciicn 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), seet.ing a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/-. Upon consrde,ration of the pleadings and evidence presented, the Court below pairtially allowed the petition and directed the respondent to cay a monthly maintenance sum of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, ef 'ective from the date of filing of the petition. The said amount is to :r: credited into the petitioner's bank account on or before the 10il-r day of each 2 NIR,] CRLRC 767 2023 month. Additionally, the Court ordered the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance within four months from the date of the order, along with litigation costs quantified at Rs.5,0001. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Court below passed the impugned order without duly appreciating the material evidence on record. He submits that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that the petitioner voluntarily left the matrimonial home, and that there was no neglect or refusal on his part to maintain her. It is further argued that the Court did not take into account the petitioner's entitlement to a share in her parental house property' which, according to the respondent, would have a bearing on her financial needs. Moreover, the respondent asserts that the Court erred in not evaluating his financial capacity to pay maintenance. The respondent also contends that the medical reports filed by him to demonstrate his health issues, were overlooked by the Court below. He states that he is currently unemployed and has a dependent mother to care for. He further submits that the building referenced by the petitioner is registered in his father's name, and therefore, he has no absolute ownership or right over it. Additionally, the respondent points out that the petitioner is educated up to 3 NTR,J :irnc 767 2023 intermediate and possesses the ability to earn a livel,lrood. ln light of these factors, the respondent prays for the impugned order to be set aside. I have perused the materials on record.

6. 7. The marital relationship between the parirr>s and their separation since 22.11.2017 is not in dispute. The record reveals that the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and he, :lder sister as PW-2 in support of her case. The respondent allt:ges that the petitioner left the matrimonial home without any lus':ifiable reason and failed to fulfill her marital obligations. Converse:l'/ the petitioner contends that the marriage was never consurnnrrated, a claim supported by the medical records marked as Ex.t)-4. She further alleges that the respondent subjected her to abusr; and threats of dire consequences, and neglected her health and ',vell-being and this conduct and harassment compelled her to live separately. These allegations remained uncontroverted. lr- light of these considerations it shall be held that the Court below righfly held that the respondent's claim of voluntary desertion by tr-e petitioner was untenable. The trial Court appropriately appreciat,ld the evidence and materials on record in arriving at this conclusior 4 NTR,] CRLRC 767 202]

8. The respondent, examined as RW-l, asserted that he is unemployed and lacks a source of income. However, salary slips for the months of September, October, and November 2018' indicate that he was employed as a Senior Executive at Kent R.O. Systems, drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.31,5001. He claims to have resigned from his position due to his father's ill health and, therefore, pleads financial incapacity to provide maintenance. Notably, despite this assertion, the documents produced by the respondent clearly demonstrate his earning capacity.

9. ln this factual position, relying on the precedent laid down in Sonabhai Bhatiya v. Sfate of Guiarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636, the Court below rightly held that a husband cannot escape his statutory obligation to provide maintenance by citing financial hardship, so long as he is caPable of earning.

10. Additionally, it was admitted that the respondent has a multi- storied building (ground plus three floors), a significant portion of which has been rented out to tenants, except for two portions' Although the property is stated to be in his father's name, in the absence of contrary evidence, the property itself indicates a probable source of rental income. On this basis, the Court below ::-: 5 NTR,] CRLRC 767 2023 reasonably assessed the respondent's financial c:ilpacity to pay maintenance.

11. Moreover, considering prevailing living costs rrnd inflation, a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- appears modest. The Court below, in quantifying the maintenance, has dul.7 accounted for the petitioner's basic needs and the financial constraints argued by the respondent. ln this view, in the absence of any irrpropriety in the impugned order, no merit is found in the revision caise. lt is further clarified that if there are any subsequent develop rents affecting either part1,'s financial or personal circumstances, thr: petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before il- e Court below under Section 126(3) of the CrPC or Section 145(3) cl the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), as applicable ln view of the foregoing reasons, this revision case is liable to be d srnissed. 12. ln the result, the revision case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if ar v, shall stand closed l \ To, //TRUE COPY// S t\\P \ I - T. VIJAY KUMAR PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER The Judge for Trial of Cases Court. C tv civil Court. secun Two CCs to the Public Prose HyderabadIOUT] 2 under FamilY Court Act deranad cutor, H igh Court for the S'ateof Telangana at -cu m- PrinciPal FamilY 3 One CC to SRI DIDDI ARAVIND' Advocate [OPUC] 4. one CC, to SRI K HARIHAR BABU' Advocate [oPr'i:] 5. Two CI) Copies gh \0' 1 HIGH COURT DATED:1610612025 1 1i. -,i, t c IJ o 2 'l sEP 20fr t o-- i-irC' :-- ORDER CRLRC.No.767 of 2023 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISIOI\| GASE (L q (7- 1, t q