The High Court · 2025

2. Baby Chervitha, Dio Bakki Mallesh Kumar, Aged 10 years, Respondent No.2 being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian Smt.M.Sandhya Rani 1st Respondent. (both are residents of Flat No.402, Satyadurga Heaven, Chitra Layout, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. State of T.S, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of operation of the order d1.03.12.2024 made in Crl.M.P.No.34Bl2023 in M.C.No.257l2023 on the file of Addl. Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C N MOORTY Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: MS. M APARNA Counsel for the Respondents No.3: SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REODY, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: I I I ,l I )I ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE K. SUJANA CIIIMINAL REVISION CASE No.91 of 202,5 This Criminal Revision Case is Frled seeking to set aside the order dated O3.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2O23 in M.C.No.257 of 2O23 on the file of the Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.l and 2 filed a petition urlde Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2023 in M.C.No.257 ol 2023 before the Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. seeking to grant interim maintenance @ Rs.2O,O00/- per month to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 15,OOO/- to the respondent No.2. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides, awarded I an amount of Rs. I O,OOO/ - per month to each petitioners towards interim maintenance from the date of petition till disposal of the main M.C. case. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri C.N, Moorthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Aparna, learned counsel for respondent Nos. I and 2 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3. 2 sKs,", Crl.R.C-ro-g1 of 2()25

4. lrarned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tria] Court erred in allowing the application for interim maintenance, overlooking material facts and that respondent No. I is a qualilied Postgraduate Engineer (lT) and is gainfully employed. Despite being employed, respondent No.1 concealed her employment status and filed the present case, thereby misleading the Court and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1 voluntarily left the company of the revision petitioner. He further submitted that while determining the quantum of maintenance, the trial Court ought to have considered the income and financial capacity of the husband. However, witliout assessing the petitioner's sources of income, the impugned order was passed and that ttre trial Court while granting interim maintenance ignored the crucial fact that the revision petitioner has not been in service since 22.05.2023. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 03.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2023.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 Iiled counter afhdavit denying averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that although respondent No.1 is a Postgraduate Engineer (lT), she lost her job on 13.O5.2025. ln support of this, she filed her relieving certificate issued by Wipro Ltd., which indicates that she was employed until February 2O24 and tlilat respondent No. I did not voluntarily leave the compaxy of the revision petitioner. Rather, she went to her parents' house for delivery in t 3 SI(S"' Crl,R-C.Xo.91 of 2()25 December 2022. Nter the delivery, the revision petitioner neglected to bring her back to the matrimonial home and began demanding additional dowry. Despite several panchayats being hetd to resolve the issue, the revision petitioner refused to accept respondent No.l back into his household and that the revision petitioner induced respondent No. I to take a personal loan of Rs.20,00,00O/- under the pretext of purchasing a plot in their joint name. Believing his assurances, respondent No.l obtained the loal and transferred the amount to the account of the revision petitioner. However, the petitioner misappropriated the funds and failed to purchase any plot, thereby intentionally cheating respondent No. 1. These facts were pleaded in the maintenance case and supported by documentary evidence and that due to t}te fraudulent conduct of the revision petitioner in obtaining ttre loan, an EMI of more than Rs.42,OOO/- per month is being paid by the father of respondent No.l, as she lost her job in February 2024. I { t Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner is suffering from certain health ailments. Respondent No. 1 is well-educated, possesses the ability to work, and was relieved from her previous employment and that she is presently not engaged in any work. Furthermore, it is undisputed that the petitioncr, along with his family members, is operating a hotel business. 4 sxsr, CsLR-C.lo-9 1 of Z)2S A

7. Considering tJle facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the vi,ew that the impugned order is liable to be modifred by reducing the quantr.rm of interim maintenance payable by the petitioner to respondent Nos.l and 2. Hence, the interim maintenance payable by tlre petitioner to respondent Nos. I and 2, is hereby reduced from Rs.10,OO0/- per month each to Rs.7,500/- per montl each from the date of filing of the petition urde Crl.M.P.No.348 of 2023 tn M.C.No.257 of 2023 till the disposal of the main case.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the above modification. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L.LAKSHMIBABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. TheAdditional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar' 2. State of T.S, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana' 3. One CC to SRl. C N MOORW Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to MS. M APARNA Advocate IOPUC] \ To,

5. Two CD CoPies (A- TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:05111812025 ORDER CRLRC.No,91 of 2025 I 1 .'i ril ; l.:t o 11 ( (,. 28 crr nn l)r 'l D,i T/_- r !: ' 1: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISPOSED OF (r- lD I\ LS_