P.SHARADA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22.04.2019, passed in M.P.No.217 of 2017 in M.C.No.64 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad.

(2.) The 1st revision petitioner is the wife and the 2nd revision petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent herein. The revision petitioners filed M.C.No.64 of 2013 seeking to grant maintenance of Rs.15,000/- Per Month to each of them and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. By an order, dated 03.02.2016, the trial Court, after considering the rival submissions of the parties, allowed the above M.C. in part awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd revision petitioner/Son and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses to the 1st revision petitioner and further directing the 2nd respondent/husband to pay the school fee of the 2nd revision petitioner. However, the trial Court, dismissed the claim of maintenance of the 1st revision petitioner as she was working as a Team Leader in Tech Mahendra Company and earning Rs.19,000/- Per Month. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners filed Crl.R.C.No.932 of 2016 before this Court. By an order, dated 05.07.2016, this Court enhanced the maintenance amount awarded to the 2nd revision petitioner/Son from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/ per month from the date of order of the trial Court. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the revision petitioners filed M.P.No.217 of 2017 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of maintenance. The averments in the petition are that the 2nd revision petitioner is studying X Class and his school fee has been increased to Rs.7,000/- and that expenditure for his food, clothing and other miscellaneous things comes to Rs.5,000/- and that in total he requires Rs.12,000/- per month. It is also stated that the trial Court did not consider the ground of unsound mind of the 1st revision petitioner and granted divorce in F.C.O.P.No.327 of 2013 on the ground of cruelty. The trial Court also did not consider that the 1st revision petitioner worked as a private employee for a short period and that she was earning a meager amount and was totally dependent on the income of her widowed mother. As such, the application is filed to enhance the maintenance to the 2nd revision petitioner and for grant of maintenance to the 1st revision petitioner.

(3.) A counter-affidavit came to be filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, awarded maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd revision petitioner, which was enhanced by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.932 of 2016 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. In pursuance of the orders of the High Court, he has been depositing maintenance amount in the bank every month and that the present application for enhancement is not maintainable as there are no valid reasons for enhancement. It is also stated that the 1st revision petitioner is still working in Tech Mahindra company and that there are no warranting circumstances to award maintenance to her.