(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying hat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14 August 2018 made in FCMC.No.22/2017 on the file of the Hon’ble IV the Addl. District judge cum Family court, Kurnool District, in so far as the judgment which went against the petitioner herein, wherein Hon’ble Trial Court has allowed the F.C.M.C., filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the respondents 2 to 4 here in by granting the monthly maintenance to the respondents 3 and 4 here in the present appeal is filed. The Respondent No.3 is granted Rs.5000/- as maintenance, and the respondent No.4 is granted 300/- as maintenance and the Hon’ble Court has directed to pay the amount on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month.

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings in Pursuance of the Judgment/Order dated. 14.08.2018 passed in F.C.M.C. No. 22/2017 on the file of the Hon’ble IV Addl. District Judge cum Family Court, which has gone against the petitioner, directing him to pay the maintenance to respondents 3 and 4, here in pending disposal of the main Crl.R.C., and to pass)

1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.') is filed on behalf of the petitioner/respondent assailing the order dated 14.08.2018 passed in

F.C.M.C. No.22 of 2017 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge- cum-Family Court, Kurnool, (for short, ‘the Family Court’) whereby petition was partly allowed by granting maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by the petitioners 2 and 3 (children) therein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Family Court.

3. The petitioners, being the respondent’s wife and children, filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in F.C.M.C.No.22 of 2017 seeking maintenance.

4. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

                  The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and petitioners 2 and 3 are their minor children. At the time of marriage, her parents paid Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, gave gold ornaments weighing eight thulas and spent another Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and household articles. After marriage, the respondent demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and harassed her, including beating her with a sugar cane stick. When she was in the 9th month of pregnancy, he kicked her on the stomach, necessitating treatment at Hyderabad costing Rs.55,000/-, paid by her brother. At the time of delivery of the 3rd petitioner, her brother again spent Rs.50,000/-. Despite resuming cohabitation, harassment continued, resulting in a fracture to her left hand in 2005. The respondent threatened to kill her and the children, failed to provide school books to petitioners 2 and 3, and again demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction of the first floor, threatening her if she failed to bring the amount. Due to continuous threats, she has been living separately with her children in another portion of the same house since June 2013. Initially, the respondent provided some maintenance, but later completely neglected them. He is addicted to gambling, liquor and womanizing. Mediation efforts by her parents failed. The 1st petitioner is a housewife with health issues, dependent on her financially weak, aged parents. The respondent is a gazetted Head Master earning Rs.60,000/- per month, besides rental income of Rs.30,000/- and other property income. The petitioners claim monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for the 1st petitioner and Rs.10,000/- each for petitioners 2 and 3, totalling Rs.40,000/-.

5. The respondent filed a counter, denying all the allegations, and contending that 1st petitioner though educated, never treated him as a husband, suspected his chastity and frequently quarreled with him; she does not do any work and has been living separately since 2013, without informing him; after their separation, he has been residing at Shareen Nagar, Kurnool with his 76-year-old mother, who suffers from diabetes and heart ailments, and he spends Rs.12,000/- on her medical needs; he also incurs Rs.5,000/- per month for his own diabetic treatment and Rs.2,500/- for cooking expenses. He further contends that his mother has undergone bypass surgery; 1st petitioner has already been granted Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance in D.V.C.No.30/2014 by the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool; 1st petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Arts and a Graduate in Education, presently working in a private degree college and earning Rs.15,000/- per month; hence, she is not entitled to further maintenance and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners 1 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondent, he himself examined as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B10 documents were marked.

7. The Family court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the petition by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to 2nd petitioner and Rs.3,000/- to 3rd petitioner. The Family Court, however, dismissed the maintenance petition of 1st petitioner, the wife of the respondent/husband. Aggrieved by the Family Court’s order, the respondent/husband has filed the present criminal revision case.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent/State. None appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

9. Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

                  1) Whether the impugned order of the Family Court granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the filing of the petition, is legally sustainable in law?

                  2) Does the order passed by the Family Court warrant any interference?

POINTS NO.1 AND 2:

10. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand((2004) 7 SCC 659), that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court”.

11. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re- examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for concluding guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

12. It is undisputed that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, while the petitioners 2 and 3 are their minor son and daughter, respectively; the petitioners 2 and 3 were awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of ₹5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively by the Family Court.

13. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner (respondent) contends that the Family Court failed to consider that the respondent is already paying maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioners 2 and 3 as per orders in D.V.C.No.30 of 2013, and that such payments have been made regularly; despite bringing this to the notice of Family Court, it granted maintenance to petitioners 2 and 3 once again. A perusal of the Family Court's order indicates that the order in D.V.C.No.30 of 2013 does not appear to have been placed before it. However, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent contends that the order passed by the Family Court contains a reference to the earlier proceedings.

14. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / respondent submitted that the respondent has been regularly paying the maintenance amount as directed in the D.V.C., proceedings as well as under the orders passed by the Family Court.

15. To establish his monthly salary, the respondent submitted his pay slips. As per Ex.B2, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.42,011/-. He further relied on Ex.B1, a compilation of medical bills, to show that both he and his mother were suffering from health issues and had incurred medical expenses. The Family Court pointed out that the respondent is a government employee and is entitled to medical reimbursement not only for himself but also for his mother. Consequently, the Family Court held that the respondent’s assertion that he was required to spend Rs.12,000/- per month for his mother and Rs.5,000/- per month for himself towards medical treatment could not be accepted. Taking the overall facts and circumstances into consideration, the Family Court concluded that the respondent has the financial capacity and sufficient means to maintain the petitioners.

16. In this context, it is pertinent to examine the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in relation to the respondent’s admitted income. The impugned order directs the payment of monthly maintenance nearly one-third of the respondent's stated earnings. This proportion aligns with the well-established legal principle that maintenance typically extends up to one-third of the paying spouse's income, subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the maintenance granted by the Family Court and that awarded in the D.V.C., proceedings have been taken together. Thus, in both the MC and DVC proceedings, the petitioners were awarded maintenance of Rs.16,000/- per month.

17. Upon evaluating the material on record and the maintenance awarded by the Family Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount awarded does not appear to be excessive, arbitrary, or unjustified. Instead, it is consistent with judicial precedents and the underlying objective of securing a reasonable standard of living for the dependent party. Considering the financial position of the respondent, the learned Family Court rightly determined the maintenance amount. Therefore, at this stage, no tenable ground exists to warrant interference with the quantum of maintenance as determined by the learned Family Court.

18. It appears that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, son of the respondent i.e., 2nd petitioner has attained majority. It is contended that the respondent (petitioner herein) is not liable to pay maintenance to his son from the date on which he attained majority. However, this Court is of the view that this contention may be raised by the respondent before the Family Court as and when any application is filed seeking maintenance for the period subsequent to his attaining majority.

19. This Court, after thorough examination of the evidence on record and findings of the Family Court, finds no procedural irregularity or legal defect in the Family Court's order. The respondent's financial circumstances were duly considered in fixing the maintenance amount. The Family Court's determination is just, fair, and consistent with governing principles.

20. Given the discussions above and the findings, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge of the Family Court has rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the points are answered.

21. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons articulated above, Criminal Revision Case No.2747 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kurnool, in F.C.M.C.No.22 of 2017, dated 14.08.2018, is confirmed. The contention regarding the 2nd petitioner (3rd respondent herein) attaining majority and his entitlement to maintenance thereafter shall be considered by the Family Court.

                  Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.