Revisional Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence When Lower Courts’ Findings Are Reasoned: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Maintenance Award Under DV Act

“When both Courts have concurrently found the wife to be dependent and the husband capable of earning, no scope arises for revisional interference unless perversity or patent illegality is shown.” With this key observation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition filed by a retired Army personnel against concurrent orders awarding maintenance and rent to his estranged wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

On 25th September 2025 Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao upheld the decisions of the Trial Court (dated 21.09.2011) and the Appellate Court (dated 10.04.2013), confirming maintenance of ₹2,500 per month and rent of ₹500 per month under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act.

“Physically Fit Retired Army Personnel Presumed Employable; Non-Disclosure of Pension Justifies Adverse Inference”

Rejecting the husband’s plea of low pension and unemployment, the Court found that a 38-year-old ex-Army serviceman is presumed to be capable of gainful employment, particularly in roles such as security services. Noting the complete absence of pension records and employment details from the husband, the Court drew an adverse inference:

“The appellant has notably failed to provide any explanation or justification for the non-production of records relating to his pension income. In the absence of any such contention or evidence to the contrary, the Court is justified in concluding that the appellant is indeed capable of securing and maintaining gainful employment.” [Para 17]

The Court emphasized that the statutory obligation to maintain a dependent spouse continues post-retirement, especially when no physical or medical incapacity is shown.

Maintenance and Rent Under DV Act Justified Based on Wife’s Dependency and Cost of Living

The petitioner-wife was found to be unemployed with no independent income, and the respondent-husband had not produced any proof of her alleged income or assets. The Court relied on documentary evidence (Exs. P1 and P2) to affirm that maintenance had previously been paid through salary deductions until his retirement in March 2009, after which payments ceased.

“Considering the cost of living and his status as a retired employee in the Indian Army, this Court finds the maintenance amount awarded neither excessive, arbitrary, nor unjustified.” [Para 18]

The Court also upheld the grant of ₹500 per month towards rent for alternate accommodation under Section 19 of the DV Act, since the parties were living separately since 2003 and the Trial Court had reasonably declined to grant a residence order in the husband’s house.

“Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is Limited”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, the High Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are shown to be perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence.

“This Court is not required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence already appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court unless there is clear non-appreciation or misappreciation of evidence.” [Para 10]

Since both Courts had adequately considered the oral and documentary evidence, including the husband’s failure to disclose financial records and the wife’s demonstrated dependency, the High Court found no justification for interference.

Allegations of Wife’s Mental Illness Not Proved, Nor Bar to Maintenance

While the husband alleged that the wife suffered from schizophrenia and caused public disturbances, he failed to produce any medical records, prescriptions, or testimony from medical professionals in support.

The Court held that bare allegations, especially without proof of legal insanity or a medical incapacity to maintain a relationship, do not disentitle a woman from maintenance, particularly when she is otherwise dependent and unemployed.

Findings on Protection and Residence Orders Have Attained Finality

Though the petitioner-wife originally sought protection and residence orders, the Trial Court denied those reliefs, citing long-standing separation and strained relations. Since the petitioner had not challenged that portion of the order, the findings had attained finality and were not interfered with.

No Interference Warranted in Concurrent Orders Upholding Statutory Maintenance

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao concluded: “Both Courts have rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order and judgment. The impugned order and judgment are neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted.” [Para 19]

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision was dismissed, and interim orders, if any, were vacated. The Court reaffirmed that the maintenance and rent granted under the Domestic Violence Act were legally sustainable, based on available evidence and well-settled principles of matrimonial and statutory obligations

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025