IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR.

PRESENT : Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 31st day of August, 2018.

M.C.No. 5/2015

Between :

1.Potluri Subhasini, W/o Sivaji,

aged about 28 years, House wife,
resident of Balireddy Nagar,
Old Singarayakonda Panchayat,
Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.Potluri Madhuri, D/o Sivaji, aged about 10 years,

The 2nd being minor represented by her
mother, ie., 1st petitioner herein)
… Petitioners

AND

Potluri Sivaji, S/o Venkateswarlu,

Hindu, aged about 30 years, mason mastery,
resident of Desaipeta Panchayat, Jeevaraksha
Nagar, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.
…
Respondent.

This case is coming on 27.08.2018 for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri L.Brahmaiah, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri B.Sai
Sankar, Advocate for respondent, having stood over for consideration, till
this day and having perused the material available on record, this Court
delivers the following:-

// O R D E R //

01. This petition is filed by the petitioners claiming maintenance from

the respondent under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

02. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is wife of the respondent. The 2 nd petitioner is

daughter of the 1st petitioner and respondent. At about 16 years back, the

marriage of the 1st petitioner was performed with the respondent. Soon

after their marriage, the 1st petitioner and respondent resided at the house

of parents of 1st petitioner. After that, the respondent shifted their family to

his native Village Jeevaraksha Nagar, Desaipeta Panchayat. During their

 2

their wedlock, petitioner-1 and respondent got blessed with two daughters

namely Vasanthi and Madhuri ie., 2 nd petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent

shifted their family to Rayachoti town of Kadapa District. There elder

daughter namely Vasanthi was attacked with blood cancer disease. The

respondent went to other states for doing mason works by leaving the

Petitioners 1 and 2 at 1st petitioner parents house and his elder daughter

Vasanthi at his parents house. The 1st petitioner went to Desaipeta to see

her elder daughter Vasanthi, at that time respondent’s parents (inlaws of

petitioner-1) and his other relatives beat 1 st petitioner indiscriminately. For

which she reported the matter to Vetapalem Police, who in turn warned

them. The 1st petitioner took her elder daughter to her parents house. Later

at the intervention of elders, the respondent took 1st petitioner and his

children back and he put up a family at Balireddy Nagar, Singarayakonda

Vilage. Therein respondent harassed the 1st petitioner both mentally and

physically by demanding additional dowry. In addition to this, the

respondent even did not take any care about his daughter and he failed to

provide minimum treatment to her.

Due to the unbearable harassment of respondent, the 1 st petitioner

returned to her parents house. Later, the 1 st petitioner came to know

through one Yannabathina Sarojanamma of Karavadi Village that the

respondent got married one lady by name Ravuru Bhavani of

Maddiralapadu Village. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner requested the

respondent and his parents to provide medical treatment to her elder

daughter, but the respondent and his parents gave evasive reply and beat

the 1st petitioner and also necked out her from their house. Thus, the

respondent willfully neglected the petitioners. Recently, the elder daughter

of the 1st petitioner Vasanthi died due to lack of treatment. The petitioners

have no means to maintain themselves. The respondent is a mason master

and getting an income of Rs.25,000/-per month. The respondent is having

slabbed house at Desaipeta Village worth about Rs.40,00,000/-and he is also

having bank balance at various banks. So, the respondent has sufficient
 3

means to maintain the petitioners. By way of this petition, petitioners

prayed this court to direct the respondent to pay maintenance of

Rs.15,000/-each to the petitioners per month and Rs.15,000/-towards the

expenses for the litigation and for other reliefs.

03. The respondent filed a counter denying most of the petitioner

contentions, except the fact that the 1 st petitioner is his legally wedded wife

and 2nd petitioner is his daughter. He further averred the following

contentions:-

After the marriage, the 1st petitioner and respondent lived happily for

a period of 10 years at Akuthota Sangam of Karedu and Singarayakonda

respectively. The respondent provided medical treatment to his ailing

daughter. The 1st petitioner and her paramour Venkata Reddy necked out

the respondent from his house. Having no other go, the respondent

reached his parents’ house at Vetapalem. The 1 st petitioner did not allow

the respondent and his relatives to attend of last rites of his elder daughter

Vasanthi.

The 1st petitioner is having sufficient means and capacity to maintain

herself and her daughter. She is doing coolie work and getting Rs.300/-per

day. The 1st petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance as she is leading

adulterous life with Thimmeta Venkata Reddy of Kalikivaya Village. The

respondent is a weak person in the society and unable to resist the

highhanded acts of the 1st Petitioner and Venkata Reddy. The respondent is

not having any movable or immovable properties. The respondent is doing

coolie work and getting Rs.200/-per a day. The respondent is ready to lead

marital life with the 1st petitioner. Now the 1st petitioner is staying with

Venkata Reddy at Kalikivaya Village of Singarayakonda Mandal. As the 1 st

petitioner deserted her on her own accord without his fault, the respondent

is not liable to pay maintenance. So, the petition may be dismissed.

 4

04. During enquiry, the 1st petitioner got examined herself as Pw.1.

She also got examined Pw.2 and Pw.3 and no documents were marked on

her behalf.

05. On the other hand, the respondent got examined himself as Rw.1. He

also got examined Rw.2 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

06. Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

07. Now, the Points for consideration are :

(1) Whether the 1st petitioner is legally wedded wife of the

respondent and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of
respondent?
(2) Whether the respondent had neglected and refused to
maintain the petitioners without sufficient and
reasonable cause?
(3) Whether the petitioners have no sufficient means to
maintain themselves?
(4) Whether the respondent is having sufficient means to
maintain the petitioners?
(5) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim
maintenance from the respondent, if so, to what extent?

08. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the evidence of

Pw.1 coupled with evidence of Pws.2 and Pw.3 clearly establishes that the

respondent refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner and further the

respondent has financial capacity to maintain the petitioners and therefore,

the petitioners are entitled for maintenance.

09. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued

that the 1st petitioner herself deserted the respondent without any sufficient

cause and further, the respondent got illegal intimacy with one Venkata

Reddy and staying with him. He further contended that the petitioner did

not file any document proof to show about the assets of the respondent. He

further submitted that Pw1 in her cross-examination admitted that she is

not ready to lead martial life with respondent again . As such, the 1 st

petitioner is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. He

 5

further submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to take back the

2nd petitioner who is a minor and therefore prayed this court to dismiss this

petition.

10. In view of these rival contentions, I have given my anxious and

thoughtful consideration to submissions of both parties and I have perused

the entire record carefully

11. Before adverting to the appreciation of adduced evidence, it would be

most appropriate to set out some vital aspects about the scope and object

of S.125 Criminal Procedure Code.

12. The terms “Maintenance” or “providing maintenance” have not been

deciphered and defined perspicuously in the substantive or procedural laws.

These terms derive categorical connotation from the catena of precedents

and gain perceptive explication and trenchant exegesis from the judicial

dicta. While the literal meaning of the term maintenance as per the

Black’s law dictionary is the furnishing by one person to another, for his

or her support, the means of living or food, clothing, shelter, etc,

particularly where the legal relation of the parties is such that one is bound

to support the other as between husband and wife and father and child. It is

said to include anything requisite to housing, feeding, clothing, health

travelling expenses or other proper cognate purposes.

13. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure

Code was intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter

whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy

manner.

In Vimla Vs Veeraswamy 1991 (2) SCC 375, a three judge bench of

Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing with the scope of S.125 Cr.P.C

Opined that this section is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is

to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the

supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.

 6

A two-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiritkant D.

Vadodaria Vs State of Gujarat and another (1996) 4 SCC 479, while

adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled

that

“While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in

Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and

primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm

parents etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those

who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a

moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy

remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress.

The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose.

The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in

Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in

a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.”

In Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai (2008) 2 SCC 316 while reiterating

the legal position the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: -

“Section-125 of CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially

enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in

Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal Vs Veena Kaushal (1978) 4 SCC

70 falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article

39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The

object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy

for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives

effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his

wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves.

Recently in Nagendrappa Vs Neelamma 2013 (3) SCALE 561, it has

been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a

summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable

to maintain herself and her children.” . Keeping these authorities in

 7

mind, I hereby proceed to evaluate the adduced evidence of both

parties.

14. Point-1 and 2:

Herein the case, it is an admitted fact that the 1 st petitioner is legally

wedded wife of the respondent. It is also an undisputed fact that the 2 nd

petitioner is daughter of the respondent and the 1 st petitioner.

Unequivocally, the 2nd petitioner is a minor. Apparently, the petitioners are

residing away from the respondent. The only dispute is with regard to the

fact whether the respondent has refused and neglected to maintain the

petitioners 1 and 2 or not.

15. Since the petitioners approached the court, it is their initial burden to

establish that the respondent has refused and neglected to maintain them.

To prove the same, the 1st petitioner has examined herself as Pw.1. Her

evidence goes in accordance to the contents of the petition. In brief, the

evidence of Pw.1 goes to show that at about 16 years back, she got married

to the respondent and she gave birth to 2 daughters namely Vasanthi and

Madhuri ie., 2nd petitioner, thereafter the respondent started to harass her.

Her evidence further shows that her elder daughter Vasanthi was suffering

with blood cancer and the respondent went to other states for mason works

by leaving herself and 2nd petitioner at her parents house and her elder

daughter at the house of parents of respondent. Her evidence further

shows that the respondent did not provide any medical treatment to her

daughter Vasanthi and demanded her to provide additional dowry. Her

evidence further shows the respondent did not provide food to her and

children properly and he used to beat and being unable to bear the said

harassment, she left the house of the respondent and went to the house of

her parents house and thereafter, the respondent got married one Ravuri

Bhavani of Maddiralapadu and so, the respondent refused to maintain them.

 8

16. To support her version, the petitioner also got examined her mother

as Pw.2 and another independent witness as Pw.3. Their evidence also goes

in the same lines as that of Pw.1 with regard to the reason for which the

respondent had neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners. In spite

of grueling cross-examination, nothing was elicited from the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 to shake the credence of their testimony.

17. Per contra, the respondent got examined himself as Rw.1. His

evidence goes to show that after the marriage himself and 1 st petitioner

lived happily for about 10 years and when his elder daughter fell sick, the

1st petitioner used to go out of the house as per her whims and fancies,

when he questioned the same, the 1 st petitioner and her paramour Venkata

Reddy beat her. His evidence further shows that the 1 st petitioner and

Venkata Reddy necked out him from his house, having no other go he

reached his parents’ house at Vetapalem. His evidence also shows that the

1st petitioner leading adulterous life with one Thimmeta Venkata Reddy, as

such she is not entitled for any maintenance. His evidence further shows

that he is ready to lead marital life with the 1 st petitioner, but the 1st

petitioner is now staying with Venkata Reddy at Kalikivaya Village.

18. During the cross-examination, Rw.1 admitted that his wife has filed

498-A case and Domestic Violence Case against him and the same are

pending before this court. He further admitted that he did not attend the

funerals of his elder daughter Vasanthi. Rw.1 further added that one

Venkata Reddy threatened him by saying “if you attend the funerals of your

elder daughter, I will see your end”. He further admitted that he did not

give any complaint about the threatening of Venkata Reddy to the Police

and that he did not give any report to police about the alleged intimacy

between Pw.1 and one Venkata Reddy.

19. The evidence of Rw.2 goes to show that when the 1st petitioner stayed

with the respondent at Vetapalem Village, she used to borrow loans from
 9

strangers and such creditors used to come to the house of the respondent

and threaten him to discharge the loans obtained by petitioner-1 . She

further deposed that the respondent never married another lady and the

respondent provided essential medical treatment to his deceased daughter.

She further deposed that the 1st petitioner used to leave the house of the

respondent at Vetapalem and used to return to the house after two or three

days, when the respondent questioned the 1 st petitioner about the same, she

lodged a false complaint against the respondent. In her cross-examination

She stated that Rw.1 is her son by courtesy.

20. It is the contention of respondent counsel that Pw.1 admitted in her

cross examination that she is not ready to lead martial life with respondent

again. This court hereby holds that the said contention do not hold any

water, in fact in her cross-examination stated that “ My husband did not

attend even after the death of my daughter and thereby I am not interested

to lead marital life again”. Even Rw.1 in his cross-examination admitted that

he did not attend the funerals of his elder daughter vasanthi. As per the

version of Pw.1, due to above said act of respondent, she is not interested to

join the respondent. Merely on this admission itself, the claim of Pw1 cannot

be ignored.

21. Coming to another contention of respondent counsel about the illegal

intimacy of Pw.1, Rw.1 testified that the 1 st petitioner got illegal intimacy

with one Venkata Reddy and they together necked him out of the house, but

no evidence was adduced to substantiate the said contention. Even the

evidence of Rw.2 is silent about the said intimacy between Pw.1 and Venkata

Reddy. Further Rw.1 in his cross examination have stated that he did not

give any report to police about the alleged intimacy between Pw.1 and one

venkata reddy. If really there is any illegal intimacy between Pw.1 and one

venkata reddy, Rw.1 might have approached the police or his family elders

complaining about the behavior of Pw.1, but nothing was brought on record

in proof the Rw.1’s version.

 10

22. Further, admittedly the 1st petitioner lodged a report against the

respondent for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal

Code and the said criminal case is pending before this court. If really, the

respondent is willing and ready to receive the petitioners, he might have

taken necessary steps by sending elders to the house of the petitioners or

by instituting a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the

petitioners, but no such attempt was made by Rw.1. So, viewed from any

angle, in absence of any supportive independent evidence, the court is

unable to accept the self serving testimony of the respondent that the 1 st

petitioner and one venkat reddy necked him of out of the house. I do not

find any reason to dis-believe the version of Pws 1 to 3. 23. On

summing up of the entire evidence, the evidence of Pw.1 supported by her

mother ie., Pw.2 and an independent witness ie., Pw.3 clinchingly

establishes that the disputes arose between the 1st petitioner and

respondent as the respondent demanded her to get additional dowry and

also beat her. Up on the perusal of the entire evidence, this court holds that

the petitioners are able to establish that the respondent has refused and

neglected to maintain the petitioners. Accordingly, Point No.1 and 2 are

answered in favour of the Petitioners.

23. Point No.3 :

According to Pw.1 herself and the 2 nd petitioner neither possess any

movable properties nor sufficient means to maintain themselves. Though

the respondent deposed in his evidence that the 1 st petitioner is doing coolie

works and getting income of Rs.300/-per a day. Except his oral testimony,

he did not file any document to show that the 1st petitioner gets Rs.300/-per

a day. Thus, the court finds no force in the said contention of the

respondent. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioners have no sufficient

means to maintain themselves. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in

favour of the petitioners.

24. Point N0.4 :-

 11

It is the evidence of Pw.1 that the respondent is doing mason works

and getting monthly income of Rs.25,000/-and that the respondent has got

RCC slabbed building worth about Rs.40,00,000/-and also having bank

balance. The evidence of Pw.2 also goes in the same line. But, no document

is filed to that effect. At this juncture, it is not of out of place to refer to the

decision rendered by Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Basantha

Kumari Mohanthy Vs Sarat Kumar Mohanthy, 1982 Crl.L.J. 485,

wherein it was held that

“7. No doubt an order Under Section 125 can be passed only if a

person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife,

child, parents etc. It is, however, well settled that the expression 'means'

occurring in Section 125 does not signify only visible means, such

as, real property or definite employment and if a man is healthy and

able-bodied, he must be held to be possessed of means to support his wife,

child etc. The Courts have gone to the extent of laying down that the

husband may be insolvent or a professional beggar or a minor or a

monk, but he must support his wife so long as he is able-bodied and

can eke out his livelihood.

In Chandra Prakash's case Justice I. D. Dua (as his Lordship

then was) was of the view, (Para 7):

“An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of

earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife

and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn

enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is

for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for

holding that he is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to

discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the

husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the

presumption will be easily permissible against him.

this Court in Veragam's case (ILR 1963 Cut 4151 held;

 12

...the words 'sufficient means' should not be confined to the actual

pecuniary resources but should have reference to the earning capacity....

In this case the respondent did not lead any evidence for holding that

that he is unable for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to

discharge his legal obligation of maintaining petitioners . Coming to the

question, whether the respondent is an able-bodied person or not?, I have

no doubt in my mind to say that the respondent is able-bodied person. It is

not of out of place to mention that respondent himself admitted that he is

getting an income of Rs.200/-per day, as such this court has no hesitation to

hold that the respondent is able-bodied and he has sufficient means to pay

maintenance to the petitioners. Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in

favour of the Petitioners.

25. Point No.5:-

In view of the discussion and findings in Point Nos.1 to 4, the court

holds that the petitioners are able to establish that the respondent has

sufficient means to maintain the petitioners, but he has willfully neglected

and refused to maintain the petitioners. Therefore, the court holds that the

petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. The next

question that arises is what should be the amount of maintenance? It is

obvious that the following principles are to be kept in mind while

deciding maintenance;

“The object of provision being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, it has

to be found as to what is required by the petitioners to maintain a standard

of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly

consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of

petitioners for a moderate living, the earning of respondent are relevant

factors.

Herein the case, though petitioners sought Rs.15,000/- towards legal

expenses, Pw.1 did not whisper anything about the legal expenses in her
 13

evidence. So her claim for legal expenses is not considered as she is

entitled for free legal aid under legal services authorities Act.

The petitioners 1 and 2 claimed Rs.15,000/-per month towards their

expenses ie., food and clothes. The evidence of the respondent clearly

shows that he did not pay any amount towards maintenance of the

petitioners. However, it is noted that the present petition has been

originally filed in the year 2015. Keeping the above principles in mind, the

court is inclined is grant maintenance to the petitioners in a reasonable

manner by considering the financial capacity of the respondent and other

relevant factors. Accordingly, Point No.5 is answered in favour of the

petitioners.

26. In the result, this petition is allowed with costs of Rs.500/-

(Rupees Five hundred only) and respondent is directed

(1) To pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each per

month towards maintenance to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the
date of this petition i.e., 02.02.2015.
(2) To pay costs and arrears of maintenance within three
months from the date of this order dated 31.08.2018.
(4) To pay monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every

succeeding month to the petitioners 1 and 2.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, pronounced by me in

Open Court, this the 31st day of August, 2018)

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR .

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

Pw.1: P.Subhasini Rw.1: P.Sivaji

Pw.2: K.Bujjamma Rw.2: J.Ramanamma
Pw.3: T.Subbulu
 14

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :

-NIL-

A.J.M.F.C., KANDUKUR.