P ILESH YADAV Vs. P SUVARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the Revision-Petitioner. This revision is preferred by the husband against the orders passed in M.C.No.1 of 1998 by the Family Court, Secunderabad, awarding maintenance of Rs.500.00 per month from the date of filing of petition i.e., 5-1-1998.

(2.) It is undisputed fact that the marriage of revision petitioner with the first respondent took place on 31-3-1994 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is also equally not disputed that prior to marriage betrothal ceremony was performed on 18-4-1993. The revision petitioner is said to be working as a linemen in telephones department. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the parents of the 1st respondent gave RS.5,000.00 in cash and presented Bajaj Chetak Scooter and house hold articles, 11 tulas of gold ornaments to the revision petitioner. They spent Rs.75,000.00 towards marriage expenses. It is further alleged that the parents of the 1st respondent presented Rs.1,000.00 towards clothes and 1/2 tula of gold ring to the revision petitioner at the time of betrothal ceremony and incurred Rs.30,000.00 for the function. The revision petitioner and his family members have asked the 1st respondent to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000.00 from her parents. Immediately after the nuptials the 1st respondent was sent to her parents house and after one month she again joined the revision petitioner within 15 days. The revision petitioner and his family members poured kerosine on her with an intention to kill her. On hearing the cries of the 1st respondent, neighbours came and rescued her. The revision petitioner and his family members have stated in the panchayat that they do not like the 1st respondent and they want to perform the marriage of the revision petitioner with another girl for getting more dowry. Thereafter, the 1st respondent and her family members made efforts for re-conciliation but the revision petitioner did not take her back. It is also alleged that the revision petitioner married one -2- Roopa d/o. Krishna r/o. Hyderabad and living with her and begot a child through her. It is further alleged that the revision petitioner is also doing milk business and earning Rs.5,000.00 per month. It appears that 1st respondent has filed C.C.No.32/96 on the file of Mahila Court, Hyderabad, against the revision petitioner u/s.498-A IPC and the same is pending. She also lodged another complaint vide FIR No.7/98 u/ss.34,107, 403,494,120-B IPC r/w. 6 and 8 of Dowry Prohibition Act before the Women Police Station, Hyderabad, on 29-1-1998. It is also alleged by the revision petitioner that the 1st respondent and her family members with the help of police forced him to enter in to mutual divorce agreement and he was forced to pay Rs.30,000.00 . It is also alleged by the revision petitioner that they got it mentioned in the agreement that he agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 towards permanent alimony to the 1st respondent. It appears that mutual divorce agreement was drafted by both the advocates. After enquiry, the learned Judge awarded maintenance of Rs.500.00 p.m. to the 1st respondent after taking in to consideration of the income of the revision petitioner.

(3.) It is a case where compromise is said to have been entered in the Women Police Station, Begumpet, where Rs.30,000/- is said to have been paid to first respondent by the revision petitioner. The order of granting maintenance has been assailed on the ground that there was no discussion about exhibits and there is no evidence on record to show that the revision petitioner had entered in to a second marriage with some girl and there was no material to show that the revision petitioner had left the company of the 1st respondent. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no proper evaluation of evidence.