Mohd Sifathullah vs. The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd Sifathullah, filed a Criminal Revision Case challenging an order dated August 7, 2008, passed by the Additional Family Court-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. This order granted monthly maintenance of ₹1,500 to the respondent No. 2, Sharifa Tabassum, his wife. The respondent had claimed maintenance alleging harassment and dowry demands by the petitioner and his family after their marriage on January 20, 2002. She stated she had no means to support herself. The petitioner opposed this, asserting he did not harass her, there were no dowry demands, and the respondent was earning ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month from a beauty parlour, while he earned only ₹2,500 from a private job. The trial court, after examining evidence, granted maintenance.

Held

The High Court held that the scope of revision against a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is limited. Citing the Supreme Court in Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs. Pyla Suri Demudu, the Court stated that a revisional court should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the trial court, unless there is an illegality, material irregularity in procedure, or an error of jurisdiction. The petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to prove that the respondent No. 2 was running a beauty parlour and earning ₹8,000 to ₹10,000 per month, which would typically involve premises, permissions, and tax payments (like GST). The trial court found the petitioner's witness regarding his income to be planted and concluded his earnings were ₹5,000 per month, leading to the maintenance order of ₹1,500. The High Court found no irregularity or illegality in the trial court's order and no miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the revision petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and correctly granted maintenance to the respondent No. 2, considering her alleged means of income, as per Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (implied). Petitioner's arguments: The trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, should have dismissed the maintenance petition, and should have considered that the respondent No. 2 has her own means to maintain herself by running a beauty parlour. The petitioner also argued that the trial court failed to consider his limited income of ₹2,500 per month from ADR Carrier Service. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State/Respondent No. 1. However, the trial court's findings, as detailed in the judgment, indicate that the respondent No. 2's claim of harassment and lack of income was believed, and the petitioner's claims about the respondent's income and his own income were not substantiated with adequate evidence.