Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 438 (1) OF BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in M.C.No.493 of 2019 daled 19.02.2024 by the I Addl Family Court Cum XIV Addl Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner(s) Counsel forthe Respondent Nos 1 & 2 Counsel of the Respondent No.3 Sri. G Mahesh Reddy Sri G Anand Kumar Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Asst. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SfUANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 17O of 2tO25 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed chir Lllnging the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.No.49i, rL 20 19 by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-Xl\' {dditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

2. The brief facts of the case are that respr)n, lent No. 1, the legally r.r,edded wife of the Petitioner, fiL:tI r pctition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking ir monthly maintenance of Rs.30,0O0/- (Rs.20,0OO/- for h: rself and Rs.10,000/- for her minor son). Their m:r r iage was solemnized on 19. 1 1.2O 15 in Hyderabad as ;rn arrangecl marriage. She alleged that post-marriag(' she \r,as subjected to cruel treatment and dowry harassnr, nt bv the peti[ioner and his family. Initial dowry and gifi s :Lt thc time of marriage included Rs.8,O0,O0O/-, gold jeweltcry fl5 tulas, of which 5 were given to the husband), anr I lror-r schold items. Despite this, the family of the petition rr allcgcdly demanded an additional Rs.4,OO,OO0/- in dowr-i,. ,,vhich her 2 sKs,J Crl.RC.I{o.l70 of 2O25 father reluctantly paid. Later, they demanded a further Rs.10,00,000/-, leading to persistcnt harassment and physical abuse, even during her pregnancy

3. She was sent to her parental home during her ninth month of pregnancy, following customary practice, and gave birth to a baby boy on 07.12.2016. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner refused to take her back unless the additional dowry was paid. An ex parte divorce decree was obtained by the petitioner on I5.O7 .2019, which she discovered only during a visit [o his residence on l7.ll.2ol9. By that time, he had remariied and had a daughter. The wife also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The Petitioner, a software engineer aL Zen 3 Solutions earning around Rs.50,O00/- per month, denied the allegations, stating instead that the respondent deserted him without reason, and cited the financial burden of supporting his aged and ailing parents, his father suffering from heart conditions and his mother undergoing 3 SKS,J Crl.F:.Cl l{o.170 of 2O2S chemotherapy for colon cancer. He also claimr:d to be from a modest middle class background and sta tt:d he had additional responsibilities after remarriage

5. During the proceedings, both particr; submitted details of their assets and liabilities. The wife u,as examined as PW- I and produced supporting wit.:rr:sses and documents. The husband was examined as I?W- I . After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court partl-v :rllowcd the petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,,O00/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1O,000/- pcr- month to their son, effective from the date of the order. Th e trial Court also directed to respondent No.1 to open a natio:ri Llized bank account for receiving the maintenance, whicl L was to be deposited by the lOtt of every month. Aggrieved tfrereby, the pet itioner-h Ltsband filed the present criminal rer i:;ion case.

6. Heard Sri G. Mahesh Reddy, 1earne,1 counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as liri G. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf ol r-espondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddv, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3. 4 SKS.J Crl.R.C.No.170 of 2O25 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

7. impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and nol bascd on material evidence on record, but rather on presumptions and conjectures and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the categorical admission of the respondent that she is a qualified Mechanical Engineer who was employed both prior to and after the marriage. He further submitted that despitc being separated since 2016, the respondent made no effort to join the society of the petitioner and only initiated proceedings in M.C-No.493 of 2079 and hled FIR No 60T of 2O20 upon learning that the petitioner intended to remarry, after the dissolution of their marriage in O.P.No'125 of 2O18 vide order dated 15.07.2019, indicating clear mala fides and an abuse of judicial process. He further submitted that the respondent, despite being qualihed and expcricnced, has been deliberately unemployed and has madc no sinccrc effort to secure gainful employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

8. petitioner is solely responsible for the care of his ailing father, a heart patient requiring ongoing medical supervision, and has incurred substantial debts whilc 5 sl(s,J cil.R.c.l{o. 170 of 2O25 treating his late mother, who succumbed to color r. ancer ln July 2O21 and that the trial court failed to consirl:rr that the petitioner is remarried and is blessed with .r minor daughter, further augmenting his hnancial respr: n sibilities, whereas the maintenance awarded, being 1 / ill(t of his modest salary of Rs.44,750/-, is excessive. [1t' further submitted that the allegations against the pe t iti'lner are vague and un substantiated, and that it was the rcspondent who chose to leave the company of the petitioner. g. Learned counsel for the petitioner further '-: that the petitioner has complied with . tlr -: interim maintenance orders passed in M.P.No.3O of 20 lr), having rntendcd disbursed over Rs.3,00,000/- in compliance an<l continues to pay Rs.15,000/- monthly along with arrears to lhe best of his f-rnancial capacity, reflecting his bona ll':tes and willingness to abide by the directions of I r<' Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the o-cler of the trial Court by attowing this criminal revision case.

10. On the other hand, learned counseL for the respondents filed counter denying the averment:; :nade by .l 6 SKS,J Crl.R-C.No- 170 of 2O25 the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the present criminal revision case has been filed with a delay and based on misleading and fabricated grounds and that the petitioner has falsely attributed the delay to a suggestion of full and final settlement made by the respondent, which is factually incorrect and unsupported by any material on record. He further submitted that the petitioner, instead of complying with the lawful maintenance orders passed in M.C.No.493 ol 2079, has consistently defaulted in payment and suppressed this wilful disobedience before this Court and that while hling this revision petition and thc accompanying delay petition, the petitioner has not disclosed key facts, including pending applications and admitted arrears, thereby casting serious doubt on his bona fides.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has already acknowledged the maintenance arrears of Rs.5,85,O0O/- through a Calculation Memo filed before the trial Court, which contradicts the version presented in the Criminal Petition No.2880 of 2025. The continued suppression of these facts before different fora 7 SKS,J crl.R-C.No.170 of 2O25 indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the Clourt. The petitioner has failed to comply with various clirections, including furnishing identity documents necess.lrJ for the educational needs of the minor child. Despite repeated notices, he remained absent, leading to ex parte rrrders. He further contended that there is no illegality in t h,: order of the trial Court and the trial Court has rightll' p:rssed the orders. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the pe tition.

12. Upon considering the submissions made trv both the learned counsel and after careful perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the main cont.ention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, after ,rbtaining a decree of divorce, the petitioner remarried a s::<:ond time owing to the conduct of the respondent. That rnarriage, however, ended in a mutual divorce. Subsequentty. in order to fulhl the last wish of his ailing mother, thr petitioner entered into a third marriage and is now blesst:d with a female child. It is also submitted that the petitioner incurred subslantial expenses towards his mother's medical treatment, who has since passed away, and t tr at he is 8 SKS'J Crl.RC.I{o.l7O of 2025 presently responsible for the flnancial upkeep of his third wife and aged father. His current monthly income is stated to be Rs.44,O0O/-, and he contends that payment of one- third of his salary as maintenance is beyond his financial capacity. Additionally, it is argued that the respondent, being an educated individual with an engineering qualification, is capable of maintaining herself and cannot remain idle and claim maintenance.

13. On evaluating these submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has since remarried and is now responsible for the maintenance of his third wife, their minor daughter, and his dependent father. The trial Court had awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 1O,0OO/ - per month to the minor child. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent is currently unemployed and has the added responsibility ol caring for the child.

14. ln light of the financial constraints expressed by the petitioner, and considering the overall circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the maintenance 9 SKS,J Crl.R.(:.No. 170 of 2O25 amount awarded to respondent No.2 (minor r:irild) from Rs. 10,000/ to Rs.7,500/- per month.

15. With the above modification, this Criminirl Revision Case stands disposed of As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions penrlirLg, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR t CTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Addl Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri. G [tlahesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. G Anand Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies YJR /GH HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 ORDER CRLRC.No.170 ot 2025 -1 - .-\: , rrii. \\ 21 StP ?06 'i-, _/ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISIIf,N CASE.