YALAKALA RAVIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of the order, dated 26.10.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2018 in M.C.No.45 of 2018 on the file of the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

(2.) Respondents 2, 3 and 4, who are wife and daughters of the petitioner herein, filed M.C.No.45 of 2018 claiming maintenance of Rs.72,000/- per month and also Rs.15,00,000/- for repayment of the debt, from the petitioner herein. Along with the said M.C., respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein filed Crl.M.P.No.245 of 2018 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the petitioner herein. In the said case, the petitioner/husband did not file any counter-affidavit in spite of granting sufficient time. The trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence available on record, allowed the said petition, by an order dated 26.10.2018, directing the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/wife and Rs.7,500/- per month to each of respondent Nos.3 and 4 from the date of filing of the petition. Questioning the said order, the petitioner/husband filed the present Criminal Petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted that since the counsel for the petitioner appearing in the Court below did not intimate about the date of hearing of the case and as such the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and file counter-affidavit within time. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent/wife who is a well qualified woman is not entitled to remain as an idle and claim maintenance from the petitioner/husband and in support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 3 MPLJ 100. He further submitted that the Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse while granting maintenance and in support of the said contention, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, 2017 15 SCC 801. He further submitted that the petitioner/husband is willing to pay maintenance to his minor children and that the 2nd respondent/wife cannot claim any monetary relief against the petitioner/husband as she is having sufficient means to maintain herself.