DVC- interim maintenance to the child only - As seen from the counter and documents filed by him, R.1 has pronounced divorce to the petitioner No.1 and he has also deposited the amounts with the Quazi. Hence, it is clear that there is no marital relationship between R.1 and petitioner No.1. Though petitioner No.1 has contended that R.1 is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.24,000/- per month, but she has not filed any document in proof of income of R.1. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and occupation of R.1 and taking into consideration the present day cost of living for the sustenance of the minor petitioner, I am inclined to allow this petition partly.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013

Date:30^th January, 2013

Between:

M.A.Bakhi S/o.M.A.Rasheed

....Petitioner

(in both cases)

And

M.A.Rafee S/o.M.A.Bakhi & Ors.

....Respondents

(in both cases)

***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013

COMMON ORDER:

        These two Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the common order, dated 04.09.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.80 and 91 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar.

2.     The petitioner is the former husband of Asiya Khanam. Their minor son is M.A.Rafee, aged about 3 years.  The ex-wife and the minor son filed D.V.C.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking maintenance, return of dowry amount and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- etc.  They also moved Crl.M.P.No.748 of 2012 under Section 23 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each.  The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, refused to grant interim maintenance to the ex-wife, while allowing interim maintenance to the son at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m., by order, dated 10.05.2012.  Relevant portion of the said order needs to be noted and it is thus:

          “Heard.  A perusal of the record and the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 prima facie shows that R.1 along with his family members has harassed her and at last necked her out of their house. As seen from the counter and documents filed by him, R.1 has pronounced divorce to the petitioner No.1 and he has also deposited the amounts with the Quazi.  Hence, it is clear that there is no marital relationship between R.1 and petitioner No.1.  Though petitioner No.1 has contended that R.1 is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.24,000/- per month, but she has not filed any document in proof of income of R.1.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and occupation of R.1 and taking into consideration the present day cost of living for the  sustenance of the minor petitioner, I am inclined to allow this petition partly. 

          In the result, the petition is partly allowed and R.1 directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month to the petitioner No.2 towards his maintenance from the date of this order till he (petitioner No.2) attains the age of majority.”

Aggrieved by the order, the ex-wife and the son filed Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2012 and whereas the husband filed Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the interim maintenance allowed to the son is not just and fair and thereby proceeded to enhance the interim maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- p.m., by partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2012 filed by the ex-wife and son; and dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 filed by the husband, by a common order, dated 04.09.2012.  Hence, these two Criminal Revision Cases.   

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the common order impugned in the revision cases.

4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the interim maintenance granted to the son is on high side and therefore, the same is required to be reduced.

5.     The interim maintenance granted to the son is Rs.2,000/- p.m.   In the given facts and circumstances, the said amount cannot be said to be on high side.  Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the common order impugned in these revision cases.

6.     Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed at the admission stage.  However, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.97 of 2011 within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:30^th January, 2013.

cs   

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013

Date:30^th January, 2013