The High Court · 2025

Smt.Thota Saraswathi @ Marabathuni Saraswathi, Wo.Thota Rambabu, Aged 3 1 years, D/o.M.Chinna Pullaiah, R/o. H. [t{o. 1 -43 Porumamillapalle, Chinna Cumbum - 523 333, Prakasam District, A.P. ... PetitionerlRespondent AND Sri Thota Rambabu, S/o.Thota Venkateswarlu, Aged 3J years, -99r.-Pn't' Emplayee, R/o.H.N6.t-t-Zg-305, Jai Jawan Colony, Kapra, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 62, T.G. ...ResPondenUPetitioner Petiticn under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ttre affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to rracate the order passed in CRP No. 466 of 2025, dated 171O412O25 in the interest of igstice Counselfor the Petitioner :SRl C v L NnnaSlirlHA RAO Respondent : SRI KHAJA VIZARATH AL[- : inade the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No- of 2o25 ORDER: Heard Sri. C.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Khaja Yizatath Ali, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2025 in I.A. No. 469 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No. 385 of 2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court, Medchal Malkajgiri District at I(ushaiguda, wherein, the petition filed under Section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was partly allowed granting interim maintenance of Rs.24,O0O/- per month to the respondent/wife and son payable by the petitioner/husband from the date of petition within three (03) rnonths in three installments and also to pay the regular rnaintenance on or before lott' of every succeeding month from the rnonth of February, 2025.

3. The petitioner and respondent'are husband and wife having been married on 11.10.2017 under Hindu Rites and customs at Vorla Laxmi Narasamma Conventions, Saket, Kapra, ECIL Post, t'\I 2 RY,J crp_466_2025 Hyderabad. Thereafter, disputes arose between the respondent on one hand imd the petitioner and his family members on other hand. According to the respondent, the petitioner herein and his family members have abused her in filthy language and necked her out on 29.o9.2o2o with a demand for additionat dowry of Rs.4o,00,oc,o/-. The respondent was waiting for reconciliation but the petitioner filed a divorce petition in F.C.o.p. No. 3g5 of 2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, tgss, with a false allegation of cruelty .and thereafter, the respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 1O5 of 2022 on the file of learnerl I Senior Civil Judge court at M.arkapur in Prakasam District and then there \,vere attempts at compromise upon withdrawal of cases. However, the petitioner dj.d not come for counselling ancl subsequently, did not allow the re:spondent to enter into matrimonial house leading to filing of case's under Section 498(A) of the IpC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The respondent is residing with her parents and does not han,e any independent source of income.

4. The petitioner is working as Deputy Manager, ERp HR AD in vodafone at Pune and has salary of more than Rs.1,oo,ooo/-. The respondent is a BSC graduate and her general monthly expenses ,,'- \ L 3 RY,J crp_466_2o25 are Rs.68,ooo /- and she has no other source of income. Therefore, sought interim maintenance of Rs.60, OOO / - per month.

5. The petitioner is a MBA graduate and his general monthly expenses are Rs.1o,0oo/- and he is a private employee and getting salary of Rs.55,oool- per month. The petitioner's case is that the respondent is earning Rs.3o,oool- per month, but no document is filed in that regard.

6. Having considered the ambit of facts and circumstances, the Iearned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.24,o0o/- per month '*,ith arrears. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred.

7. "In the grounds of the revision petition, it is pleaded that the order passed is bereft of reasons, that the liabilities of the petitioner who has to maintain his parents have not been consid.ered. Further, the capability of the respondent to maintain herself is not considered while granting exorbitant interim maintena.nce. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

8. The respondent filed counter stating that she is residing with her parents in a remote village as the petitioner refused to keep her 4 RY,J crp_466-2025 in his home with dignity of a legally wedded wife. There is a condition irnposed. on the respondent not to do any job. The respondent is facing trauma as she is unable to do job with a son aged two (O:2) years. The respondent is dependent on her parents and also her son is also maintained by the parents and they do not have any movable and immovable properties. The petitioner has stated that he is getting a salary of Rs.55,O0O/- per month but the income tax and salary receipts show that his income is more than Rs.55,OO0/-. The Liabilities shown are payment of Rs.20,0O0/- towards EMI. Reference is made to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Rajnesh a. Neha. and qnothefl about perusing tht: income tax returns, three (03) years prior to the tiling of F.C.O.P. The petitioner's submitted a salary slip for the month of August, 2024, showing gross salary as Rs.1,19,075/- and net pay as Rs.82,13+l-. The petitioner's statements show that the salary for the morrth of April, 2024 is Rs.1,O8,293/-. Though the net salary of the: petitioner for the month of June, 2024, is shown to be Rs.82,L34/-, the respondent pleaded that the petitioner is earning more than Rs.1,O8,OOO/- per month and made false statement before the Oourt attracting penal liability. The petitioner has not 1 T ' eaz11 2 scc 324 5 RY,J crp_466_2025 paid single rupee towards the welfare and mainten€u:.ce of the son. Due to the schooring of her minor son, the respond.ent is riving at Hyderabad taking residence in a decent locatity. The respondent is a BSC graduate and has done diploma in education. private teachers are getting meagre remuneration even though quatified. The respondent is trying to appear for TET and DSC examinations for government job. In the circumstances, the respondent is unable to maintain herself. Lastly, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme court of India in Neha zlagt v. Lt. col. Deepak Tgagiz, wherein it is herd that the liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the chitd continues till the child attains the age of majority. Along with the counter, the respondent filed voluminous documents containing the pleadings and documents filed in F.c.o.p. No. 3g5 of 2022, H.M.o.p. No.1o5 of 2022 and Crl.p. No. 14454 of 2024. 9' A perusal of the Assets and Liabilities information filed by the petitioner shows that he has monthly income of Rs.55,0oo/_ and, loans and liabilities to an extent of Rs.S,oo,ooo/ . Fu.rthef, thq petitioner claims that the respondent is doing a private job with income of Rs.3o,ooo/- per month and riving at her parent,s house. '{zozz13 scc 86 6 RY,J crp_466_2025 As per the income tax returns filed the total income of the petitioner for the year 2O2l-22 is Rs.8,25,09O/-, for the year 2022- 23 is Rs.7,59,080/-, for the year 2023-24 is Rs.lO,43,44O/- and for the year 20'.24-25 is Rs.10,96,030/-. When the monthly income is assessed on the basis of the income tax returns filed, the petitioner is having gross income of Rs.90,O00/- per month approximately in the year 2024-25. Whereas, the respondent is claiming that her parents do rrot have any income to meet her monthly expenses

10. As per the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent, the monthly expenditure is shown to be Rs.68,O0O/- which inchrdes expenditure of minor child aged 5 years at Rs.5,000/-, housing rent at Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.2O,OOA/- apart from other ()xpenses. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the responrlent is working and has income of Rs.30,000/- per month, on perusal of the said affidavit, after deducting frivolous ciaims, the only inference that can be made is that the respondent and her son need minimum basic household expenses of about Rs.3O,OOO/.. per month for their livelihood. Further, considering the fact tha: the petitioner has to pay EMIs and when said EMIs are deducted, 1:he petitioner has income of about Rs.7O,O00/- per knth, out of which, the petitioner has to maintain himself and the 7 RY,J crp_466_2025 respondent and her son. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that granting of Rs.24,o0o/- per month towards interim maintenance of the respondent and her son, is not on the exorbitant side. I 1' In the circumstances stated above, no faurt can be found with the interim maintenance granted by the learned Family court. There are no merits in the civil Revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. r2 Accordingly, the civil Revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shalr stand crosed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI ISTANT REG //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The principar District and sessions Judge-cum-Famiry court, Medchar ^ Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda 2. one cc to sRr c v L NARASTMHA RAo, Advocate lopuc] 3. one cc ro sRr KHAJA VTZARATH nr-r, novo"riJibpucl- 4. Two CD Copies s- ADK/PSL HIGH COI.'RT DATED i2811412025 r-t D t=ti CRP.No.466 of 2025 r,b Sih \ C) O 0 g ttB 2026 * I * DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUTCOSTS ("