Mohd. Feroz vs. Rubina Naaz

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CRL.R.C.No.709 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This revision case is filed against the order dated 07-03-2012 passed in M.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is the husband and 1 st respondent herein is the wife in M.C.No.48 of 2011. The wife filed the said M.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month against her husband and the trial Court after due consideration, partly allowed the petition awarding maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife from the date of petition. Being aggrieved, the husband filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the income of the petitioner is very meagre and he has no earning capacity and dependant on the earnings of his parents, and urged that the order of the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month is excessive.

5. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the trial Court, dated 07-03-2012 is sustainable?

6. As seen from the averments in the petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 04- 03-2010 as per the muslim rites and custom and after marriage, the first respondent joined the petitioner on 27-11-2010. Thereafter the petitioner's mother started demanding the first respondent to bring Rs.5 lakhs cash for construction of fourth floor and used to pick up quarrels, and as the first respondent failed to fulfil the demand, she was driven out from the matrimonial house. It is further averred that the

petitioner is doing business under the name and style of M/s. Royal Chicken Centre and earning Rs.20,000/- per month besides getting Rs.30,000/- per month towards rents on the house property at Nallagutta, General Bazar, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad, and that the first respondent has no means of income for her maintenance.

7. The petitioner denied the contents in the petition that he has superiority complex being a graduate and he never attended any household work and denied the marital life. It is further averred that the first respondent is not interested in getting children and that she used to pick up quarrel and create nuisance and finally left to her parents house by taking all her belongings i.e., gold ornaments, costly sarees etc. and did not join the petitioner inspite of several mediations and she bluntly refused to join him alleging that he has no property.

8. In order to prove her case, the 1 st respondent herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. Among them, Ex.A-5 is the registered sale deed, dated 22-06-1991, in the name of the petitioner's mother pertaining to the property situated at General Bazar, Secunderabad. Ex.A-6 is the copy of registered sale deed dated 10-09-2003, executed in the name of petitioner's mother for the purchase of mulgi, ground floor and first floor at Dhanbazar, Secunderabad. Ex.A-9 is the copy of the encumbrance certificate, dated 15-02-2012, for the property situated at General Bazar. Ex.B-1 is the photo of the petitioner's shop.

9. The trial Court, while considering the aforesaid documentary evidence, found that the petitioner is having sufficient means to pay maintenance to the first respondent. As seen from the record, admittedly the first respondent was deserted by the petitioner. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the petitioner that the first respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. Ex.B-1 is the document showing the photo of the petitioner's shop. As seen from the photo in Ex.B-1 and other documentary evidence, the petitioner is

doing business in the premises. Furthermore, the petitioner admitted in the evidence about the existence of ground + 3 floors with malgies in Ex.A-8 photo which belongs to his parents. The other documents i.e., Exs.A-1 to A-7 clearly show that his mother purchased those properties and he is living with his parents. The petitioner failed to adduce any rebuttal evidence that the first respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. Therefore, having taken into consideration the entire evidence on record, I am of the firm view that the trial Court considered the evidence on record in right perspective and granted maintenance to the first respondent.

10. In any view of the matter, considering the oral evidence of the 1 st respondent as P.W.1, and the documentary evidence of Exs.A-1 to A-8, it is clear that the petitioner has got sufficient means to maintain the 1 st respondent. Therefore, the order of the trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 1 st respondent is sustainable and I see no ground to interfere with the same.

11.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

K.S.APPA RAO,J

_________________

Date: 27 th April 2012 kvr