The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased. to direct the respondent No.1 to continue to pay the interim maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per month. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI GULAM RABBANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI D.ARUN KUMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 12 OF 2024 Crrminal Revrsion Case filed under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 14.09.2023 in MC.No 262 of 2022 on the frle of the court of the Judge, Principal Family Court -Cum-Xlll Additional Metropoli an Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Between: Shahed Baba, S/o Abdul Rab Qureshi, Aged 38 Years., Occ. Unemployed, R/o H.No 6-3-12421176, M.S. ttilaqtha, Khairatabad, Hy,j€)rabad ...Revision F etitioner/Respondent AND

1. Sania Fatima, W/o Shahed Baba, Aged about. 35 years, Jcc Household, Presently Rlo 8-15-711111. Vattepally, New Akber Color y Hyderabad, T S. 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...Resporrdent No.'l /Petitioner ...Respondent No.2 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GULAM RABBANI Counsel for the RespondentNo.l: SRI MOHAMMAD AONAl,l Counsel for the RespondentNo.2: SRI D.ARUN KUMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRmINAL REVISION CASE Nos'662 of 2(J23 and 12 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these criminal revision cases is one and the same, they are being heard together ancl are being decided by way of this common order'

2. Since the parties in both cases are one and the same, they are hereinafter referred to as in M'C'No'262 of 2022'

3. Crl.R.C.No.662 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner wife aggrieved by the order dated l4'O9'2O23 passed in M.C.No.262 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

4. Crl.R.C.No.72 of 2024 is hled by the respondent - husband aggrieved by the order dated 14'09'2023 passed in M.C.No.262 of 2022 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2 SKS,J Crl.R-C.Hos.662of ZO23 b L2 of 2024

5. The briel facts of the case are that the petitic,ner, wife of the respondent, filed M.C.No.262 of 2022 :under liection 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.50,00Ct/-, alleging that aftcr their marriage on 30.04.2006, the respondent and his family members subjected her to physical ttnd mental harassment for additional dowry and hnally dro',e her out of the matrimonial home on 15.11.2019. She statcd that the respondent, who is earning about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month as an RTA agent and also receiving house rent, neglected to maintain her, though she has no means for hrrr livelihood. The respondcnt, while admitting the marriage. denied the allegations and contended that the petitioner he rr;elf left the matrimonial home without any valid reason, leaving the children in his custody, and that he is unerrployed and earning onlv Rs.4,00O to Rs.S,OOO per month by doing small business. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, helcl thirt thc petitioner failed to prove ,he alleged income of thc responde nt but established that sht: ,,vas unable to maintain herself and that the respondent, being her husband, ncgk:ctcd to maintain her. Taking into account the respondent's rcsponsibilities towards his aged rnother and three childrcn, thc trial Court partly allowed the petition ancl I t: 3 SKS,J Crl.R-C.r{os.662of 2O23 &, t2 of 2024 directed him to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of hling of the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the parties filed the present criminal revision cases, respectively.

6. Heard Sri Mohd. Adan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - wife as well as Sri dulam Rabbani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - husband in both the criminal revision cases.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence and facts of the case and passed an order contrary to iaw and that the petitioner had clearly established that the respondent neglected to maintain her despite having sufficient means, and that no evidence was adduced by the respondent to disprove her case. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of the petitioner and medical records properly and ignored the fact that the respondent remained ex parte earlier and later failed to enter the witness box. He contended that the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month granted by the trial Court was meagre 4 SKS,J Crl.R.C.Nos 6(;2of 2023 & 72 of 2024 -1 { and unrcalistic, as no woman can mair tain herself in Hyderabad city with such a small amount' He therefore prayed that the order of the trial Court br: set aside and a reasonable monthly maintenance of at lear;t Rs' 15,O00/- be awardcd lo the petitioner.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel fcr the respondent- husbancl submitted that the trial Court lailed to properly appreciate the evidence and the admissior's made by the petitioncr wife and that the petitioner - wite had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any 'ustihable reason, despitc repeated requests from the husbanl and elders, and that shc has been working as a beautici ltr earning about Rs.2O,OOO/- per month. He further su rrnitted that the petitioner failed to hle any documentary evirie nce to prove her allegations of cruelty, harassment, dowry de nrancl, or physical assault, and even the medical record proclutced by her was manipulated and unreliable. He contended that the respondent is unemployed, earning onll' Rs 10,000 to Rs. 15,000/- per month, and is solely taking care of his aged mother and three children, who are all dependent on him' It was also pointed out thal the children, 'luring interaction -./ 5 SKS,J Crl.RC.[os.662of 2O23 & t2 of 2024 before the Family Court, expressed their unwillingness to stay with their mother, which clearly shows her neglect and disin terest towards them.

9. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Supreme Court in Deb Narayan Halder v. Anushree Halder, stating that since the wife failed to prove any acts of cruelty or neglect by the husband and had left his company willfully, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

10. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the trial Court had granted an amount of Rs.4,OOO/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner-wife on the ground that the respondent_husband has the responsibilit5z of maintaining three children_ Aggrieved by the said order, the wife preferred the revision petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, whereas the respondent-husband also filed a revision petition seeking to set aside the said order on the ground that he is 6 SKS,J Crl.Rc.Nos.662of 2o23 & 12 of 2024 earning only Rs.10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per morrth and has '! to take care of his three children and aged mothc -' It is the specific contention of the learnc< I r:ounsel for 1 1 . the petitioner-wife that though the trial C'rtrrt inilialiy awarded Rs.8,OOO/- per month by way of an e;< parte order and later, upon contest, observed that the petitlo:rrlr is unable to maintain herself, it erroneously reduced the nrrtintenance to Rs.4,OOO/- per month, despite sufficient material to show that the respondent has adequate income. Hence, tlre petitioner- wife sought enhancement of the maintenance to a reasonable amount. On the other hand, it is the specific c<ltl r:ntion of the learned counsel for the respondent-husban C that the petitioner herself, in earlier proceedings, admit tr'd that the respondent-husband has no income and that she il; capable of maintaining the children. It was argued that t r': petitioner has taken contradictory stands in different proce r(lings, while earlier admitting that the husband is not earn i nrl, she now claims he earns Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- per month without filing any proof. The respondent is admittedly maintainrng all three children ancl his aged mother and has limited In( i-rl)s' earning 7 SKS,J Crl.R-C.Nos.662of 2023 & 12 of 2024 only Rs.15,O00/- to Rs.20,0O0/- per month through small business.

12. On a careful consideration of the record, it is evident that the respondent-husband is indeed taking care of ttre three children and his aged mother. Though the petitioner- wife alleged that the respondent earns Rs. 1,00,000/ - per month, no documentary evidence has been hled in support of the said contention. The assets and liabilities affidavit hled by the respondent shows that he studied up to 10ft class, is not regularly employed, and earns a meagre income suflicient only to meet the basic needs of his dependents. There is also no ) ! credible evidence to show that the petitioner is earning Rs.20,000/- per month as alleged by the husband. Considering the limited income of the respondent and his responsibilities towards his children and aged mother, this Court finds no justification to enhance the maintenance amount granted by the trial Court. The quantum of Rs.4,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court appears reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. t I 8 SKS,J Crl.R-C.Nos.662of 2023 & L2 of 2O2+

13. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision t'etitions filed by the petitioner-wife and the respondent-hlLsband are dismissed, confirming the order dated 14.O9.202i) passed in M.C.No.262 of 2022 by the learned Judge, PrirLcipal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/-P.CI{.NIAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, I I Hioh Court AT Hvderabad.

1. The XIll Additional l\,4etropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad' Z. f fre State of Telangana, through its Public Prolecutor, rerving office at T.S 3 Orie CC to SRI ttrtOUnVUnO ADNAN, Advocate [OPU()] 4. One CC to SRI GULATM RABBANI, Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies ! N Vll/sa HIGH COURT DATED:2911012025 COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.662 of 2023 and CRLRC.No.12 ot 2024 4 os-THE Sr:1 {a ( I ) o u \c :t 26 mv utr * o€sp ATC *tF:.1)- DISMISSING THE BOTH CRIMINAL REV]SION CASES