Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order dated 17-10-2023, B.S. Bhanumathi, J., opined that since the husband had not raised any objection before the Trial Court that interim order could not be granted, because the wife had not filed any statement of assets and liabilities, thus, the Trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Thus, the husband could not contend that the impugned order was illegal on that ground. Further, the Court opined that the husband in his counter-statements did not specifically deny his earnings and merely stated that the wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly taken the earning capacity of the husband into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
Background
In the present case, the marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 26-08-2018, as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of the marriage, the wife’s father gave Rs. 6,00,000 cash and 20 tolas of gold ornaments as a dowry. Further, at the instigation of the husband’s mother and sister, the husband started harassing his wife for additional dowry of Rs. 10,00,000.
Thereafter, when the wife was pregnant, her parents took her to their house to write B.Sc., final year examinations, and after completion of the examinations, her parents asked the husband to take back the wife, but the husband denied saying that he was going to perform second marriage. Subsequently, on 27-07-2019, the respondents gave birth to a male child, who by birth suffered urine problems. The wife’s parents spent Rs. 2,50,000 towards treatment of the child, and neither the husband nor his parents paid any amount towards the medical expenses of the child. Further, the doctor advised surgery for the child and as the wife was not in a position to secure the amount, she asked the husband to return the gold ornaments. However, the husband did not return them.
Thus, after waiting for a long period of time with a fond hope that the husband would change his behaviour, the wife filed a report before the police station for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The wife also filed a maintenance case before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur, which was pending adjudication. The wife submitted that the husband was leading a luxurious life earning Rs. 60,000 per month towards his salary and owned a house worth Rs. 30,00,000, whereas she had no means to lead her life. The wife stated that she required Rs. 30,000 per month towards her maintenance and Rs. 20,000 towards the maintenance of her son.
Subsequently, the wife filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by grant of divorce decree, and also filed the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for seeking pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. The Trial Court vide order dated 17-10-2023, allowed the petition and directed the husband to pay Rs. 20,000 per month towards pendente lite maintenance during the pendency of maintenance case before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Railway Kodur.
Thus, aggrieved by the order dated 17-10-2023, the husband filed the present revision petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that since the husband had not raised any objection before the Trial Court that interim order could not be granted, because the wife had not filed any statement of assets and liabilities, thus, the Trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the husband could not contend that the impugned order was illegal on that ground. The Court further opined that the husband in his counter-statements also did not specifically deny his earnings and merely stated that the wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly taken the earning capacity of the husband into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
Further, regarding the husband’s contention that the wife deserted the husband, the Court opined that it was a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there was no material on record to support that the wife herself deserted the husband as contended. Thus, the Court opined that there was no impunity in the impugned order and dismissed the present revision petition.
[Anupati Rajesh v. Peruboina Anusha Sai, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 313, Order dated 05-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Indus Law Firm;
For the Respondent: N Sai Phanindra Kumar, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
