T KAUSALYA Vs. T NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision case is directed against the Judgment of the Family Court at Tirupathi in M.C. No. 7 of 1996 dated 16-2-1996 modifying the order of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi dated 6-4-1993 in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 by reducing the maintenance amount to Rs. 100.00 from Rs. 500.00 per month from the date of the Judgment.

(2.) The facts, in brief, resulting in filing of this revision case are as follows : (i) The revision petitioner Kousalya is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent herein T. Narayana Reddy. (For the sake of convenience they are referred to as wife and husband in this order.). The wife filed M.C. No. 29 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance alleging that she is the legally wedded wife and that her husband having sufficient means neglected and refused to maintain her. The husband filed his counter, but at the time of enquiry the counsel for the husband made an endorsement that the husband is willing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month and that a decree may be passed to that effect. In view of that endorsement on the petition, the learned Magistrate allowed that petition on 6-4-1993 and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 500.00 per month from the date of that petition. The husband continued to pay maintenance at that rate. (ii) In the month of April, 1995, the husband filed Criminal M.P. No. 697 of 1995 in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate under section 125(5) Cr.P.C. alleging that he had retired from service, that the wife refused to live with him and that she was leading a way ward life, that she got a house at Tirupathi getting a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 per month towards rent, that she gets annual income of Rs. 10,000.00 from landed property and that the wife has got sufficient means and, therefore, the husband requested to cancel the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month towards maintenance in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 dated 6-4-1992. The wife resisted that petition filing a counter denying the allegations in that petition. Subsequent to the constitution of the Family Court at Tirupathi presided over by a District Judge that Criminal M.P. No. 697 of 1995 in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 was transferred from the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tirupathi, to the file of the Family Court, Tirupathi and the same was renumbered as Criminal M.P. No. 30 of 1995. Subsequently, as per the docket order dated 29-1-1996, Criminal M.P. No. 30 of 1995 was numbered as M.C. No. 7 of 1996 and proceeded with the enquiry. During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner-husband, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B. 1 was marked. On behalf of the respondent-wife R.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. R. 1 and R. 2 were marked. The husband got himself examined as P.W. 1, P.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined to speak to the income of the wife. Ex. P. 1 is the copy of the settlement deed. The wife got herself examined as R.W. 1, R.Ws. 2 to 5 were examined to show that the respondent-wife has no sufficient means. Ex. R. 1 is a demand notice; Ex. R. 2 is the electricity bill relating to the house in which the wife is living. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Judge, Family Court, held that the maintenance already granted as per the Order in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 is liable to be varied and, accordingly modified the maintenance and directed the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of, Rs. 100.00 per month only from the date of his order i.e. 16-2-1996. Aggrieved of that order, the wife has come up with this revision.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on both sides and also perused the lower Court record. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the maintenance order passed in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 was at the consent of the respondent-husband, that the counsel for the husband made such an endorsement on the maintenance petition on 6-4-1993 that the husband is willing to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month and that the decree was passed to that effect. Hence, the decree passed in pursuance of the said endorsement is a consent decree and it cannot be varied subsequently to the detriment of the wife. It is further contended that M.C. No. 7 of 1996 has been filed under section 125(5) Cr.P.C. and the ingredients under section 125(5) Cr.P.C. have not been established by the husband and as such the impugned order modifying the order of maintenance granted earlier in M.C. No. 29 of 1992 is not maintainable.