Anupati Rajesh [Petitioner] Vs. Peruboina Anusha Sai [Respondent]
C.R.P. No.3352 of 2023
(HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI)
Facts: The present revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 17.10.2023, allowing I.A.No.85 of 2021 in H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to direct the respondent/petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.5,16,000/- to the petitioner/respondent or else to send him to prison.
Issue: Whether the present revision petition is maintainable?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner:
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference
Held: The court dismissed the present revision petition and held that, “The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.”
