Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
N.Balaji Kumar Reddy vs P.Anuradha on 6 March, 2025
APHC010612922018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2339/2018
Between:
N.balaji Kumar Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
P Anuradha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JITENDRA KANYALUR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2339 of 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401
of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), is filed by the husband
impugning the order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in
F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017.
2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Jitendra, the learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel
for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondent No.3-State.
3. A marriage is a union between two people that is
characterized by love, respect and commitment. The case on
hand is one where the man and woman fell in love first and
thereafter convinced the elders and their marriage was
solemnized on 27.11.2009. It was a happy wedlock, and the
spouses were blessed with a girl child on 03.07.2012. Serious rift
between the spouses brought the marriage into rough weather.
3
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
The wife claimed that her husband was cruel towards her and
filed F.C.O.P.No.69 of 2015 and the husband did not choose to
contest. The marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce dated
16.07.2016. The girl child by then was aged four years and she
was with her mother. It seems, in the divorce proceedings no
prayer was made for maintenance. About seven months after the
decree of divorce the divorced woman and her minor daughter
filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the man in
F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 before the learned Family Court-cum-V
Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The husband filed his counter
raising various contentions. The learned Family Judge inquired
into the matter where there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and
Exs.A.1 to A.12 and the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.B.1 to
B.3. Eventually, the claim for maintenance was allowed in the
following terms:
“In the result, the petition is partly allowed with costs
and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-
per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to
the 2nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date
of filing of this petition. The respondent is further directed
to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per annum to the 1st petitioner
towards medical expenses and shelter and also
4
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018Rs.30,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of
the 2nd petitioner. The rest of the claim is dismissed.”
4. The aggrieved man in this revision intending to show to this
Court the illegality or irrationality or impropriety in the order of
maintenance granted to his divorced wife and their legitimate
minor daughter.
5. In the revision the following grounds are mentioned:
The claim for maintenance ought to have been dismissed.
Exorbitant amounts were granted by the Family Court.
Even while the divorce proceedings were pending
mediation was held and the husband requested his wife to
join conjugal fold, but she refused to do the same and
therefore, her claim for maintenance ought to have been
dismissed.
Parents of the wife spoiled the matrimonial life of the
spouses.
5
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018 The wife has been earning Rs.48,000/- per month and the
Family Court erroneously granted maintenance to such a
wife.
As the wife has left the conjugal life, therefore, she is not
entitled for maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that
relative financial positions of the parties was not properly
considered by the Family Court and the revision petitioner
subsequent to the decree of divorce got married to another
woman and through that wedded life now he has a daughter and
all of them are dependents on him.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/wife and minor
daughter argued that the grounds urged in the revision are totally
meritless and the learned Family Judge appreciated the evidence
appropriately and reached to correct conclusions and at any rate
the order impugned does not suffer from any legal lapses and
therefore this revision is required to be dismissed.
8. The point that falls for consideration is:
6
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018“Whether the order granting maintenance to
divorced wife and minor daughter suffers from
factual or legal errors requiring interference in this
revision?”
POINT:
9. Certified copy of decree and order in F.C.O.P.No.69 of
2015 is Ex.A.3. Divorce was granted on 16.07.2016. It became
final. Respondent No.2 – Kum. N.Dhatri Sree is the legitimate
daughter of the Hindu spouses. All this is not in dispute. Divorce
between spouses does not severe their relationship with the
daughter born to them. Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 permits a minor child to claim maintenance
provided she is unable to maintain itself. It has never been the
case of father/revision petitioner that either he made some
arrangements or there were arrangements made by others in
support of the little child. Thus, it is at once clear that the child
has been unable to maintain herself. Then the statute states that
it has been the responsibility of the father to look after all the
needs and necessities of a growing minor child.
7
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
10. Under the order impugned the minor child was granted a
monthly allowance of Rs.5,000/-. When the proceedings were
initiated, she was studying in UKG. Evidence on record
established the educational expenses needed for the child. As
the time passes by, she grows up requiring more money for her
well being as well as her education. Keeping that in mind the
learned Family Judge also granted an amount Rs.30,000/- per
annum to meet the educational expenses of the minor daughter.
On merits, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in awarding
such amounts. Sri K.Jitendra, the learned counsel appearing for
the revision petitioner fairly concedes the claim of the minor
child/respondent No.2 as ordered by the learned Family Judge.
Therefore, this part of the impugned order does not require any
interference.
11. The evidence on record has shown that this revision
petitioner has been in the employment of Ranbaxy as a sales
officer and has been receiving monthly salary. He contended that
he was earning only Rs.40,000/- towards his salary per month.
He did not file his salary certificate. The contention of the wife
was that her husband was earning Rs.70,000/- per month. She
8
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
did not file the salary certificate of her husband. A keen reading
of the impugned order does not indicate specific findings or
observation of the learned Family Judge about the monthly
income of the revision petitioner. At this length of time, it is not
unreasonable to think that the revision petitioner must be getting
a salary around Rs.50,000/- per month.
12. The wife of revision petitioner who is respondent No.1
herein is an educated woman and by the time of marriage she
was employed and during the subsistence of marriage she
continued her employment and during divorce proceedings she
continued her position and the decree of divorce was obtained on
16.07.2016. It was thereafter in January 2017, according to her,
she resigned her job because of her neck pain. The learned
Family Judge considered the rival evidence on both sides and
held that the husband through Ex.B-series documents was only
able to show that the woman received Rs.48,878/- from her
employer for a period commencing from 01.05.2017 till
11.07.2017. From the evidence it observed that they were
towards the terminal benefits of the woman and thereafter she did
not work and earn. Thus, the wife of this revision petitioner has
9
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
been without any gainful source of revenue. The revision
petitioner did not furnish any evidence showing that she had other
sources of income. It is clear thus the respondent No.1 is a
divorced wife and has no source of income and therefore is
unable to maintain herself.
13. Section 125(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
mandates a husband to maintain his wife who is unable to
maintain herself. Explanation (b) of it reads “wife” includes a
woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce
from her husband and has not remarried. It is not the case of the
revision petitioner that his divorced wife got remarried. The
revision petitioner’s contention is that he was ready to maintain
his wife provided she joined him and to that effect he also got
issued notice to his wife even during pendency of divorce
proceedings. Even if all that is true such facts have no bearing.
A divorced woman has no duty to live with her divorced husband.
As long as the divorced husband has not been able to show any
disqualification on part of his divorced wife to seek maintenance,
the law commands him to pay maintenance.1 Therefore, the
1
Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2020) 19 SCC 342
10
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
learned Family Judge is right in holding that the divorced wife is
legally entitled to claim monthly maintenance. Such finding has
to be approved as correct.
14. The only question is about quantification of maintenance.
Since the revision petitioner is now a husband to another woman
and is also a father of another child and considering his financial
commitments and considering the fact that his divorced wife is
without any source of living, the monthly maintenance of
Rs.12,000/- granted by the learned Family Judge does not call for
any interference. A careful and just balance must be drawn
based on relevant factors. Relevant factors include income,
expenditure and standard of living of the spouses. If there is a
serious disability or ill-health to the wife and if the same is
demonstrated through tangible evidence, a further provision for
maintenance may have to be granted. In the case at hand,
respondent No.1/divorced wife has not shown any such evidence
before the Family Court. Her claim was only for maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was not a case of seeking a remedy
under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in
which proceedings a Court could make a provision for house rent.
11
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
Viewed in that manner the order of the learned Family Judge in
granting Rs.50,000/- per year to the divorced wife towards her
medical expenses and shelter does not seem strictly fall within
the conspectus of Section 125 Cr.P.C. What was granted in the
form of monthly maintenance was Rs.12,000/- and that should
take care of all her needs. It is needless to say that in the event
of changed circumstances she is always entitled to seek further
reliefs to modify the monthly allowance by filing appropriate
petition before the Court below. It is in the context of above facts
this Court intends to set aside the order granting an amount of
Rs.50,000/- per year to the divorced wife/respondent No.1
towards her medical expenses and shelter from the date of this
order.
15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Judge,
Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati in
F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 granting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per
year to the divorced wife/respondent No.1 towards her medical
expenses and shelter is set aside from the date of this order. The
remaining order of the learned Family Court is left intact. It is
12
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
made clear that this order of this Court has not absolved the
liability of the revision petitioner to pay all the arrears accrued so
far.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 06.03.2025
Ivd
13
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.2339 of 2018
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2339 of 2018
Date: 06.03.2025
Ivd