C. Buchamma v. 1. C. Dhanraj Goud

The State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad C.Buchamma @ Bhuvaneshwari, Wo C.Dhanraj Goud, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o.Plot No.1, Sharadanagar, Vanasthalipura, Ranga Reddy District. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the Order dated 22.01.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 355 ot 2024 in M.C. No. 264 ol 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, to quash the same. ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order dated 22.01 .2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 355 of 2024 in M.C. No. 264 ot 2023 passed by the Hon'bte Famity Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar against the Petitioner including payment of Maintenance pending disposal of the CRLP. These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Sri U V SURESH KUMAR, Advocate on behalf of Petitioner in CRLp 3104 of 2025 and tor Respondent No.2 in CRLP 5104 oI 2025 and of Sri M PRATHEEK REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in CRLP 3104 of 2025 and for petitioner in CRLP 5104 of 2025 and SRI M VIVEKANANDA REDDY. the Assistant public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.2 in CRLP 3104 of 2025 and for Respondent No.1 in CRLP 5104 of 2025. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,,''") THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.31O4 & 5104 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since a common issue arises in both the criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.31O4 of 2025 is filed by the petitionerlwife seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to the extent of granting Rs.S,OOO/- per month to the petitioner and consequently, prayed to enhance the same from Rs.5,O00/- to Rs.20,OOO/- per month.

3. Cr1.P.No.51O4 of 2025 is hled by the petitioner/husband seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. r: 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.31O4 & 51(}4 of 2025

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 355 of 2024.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the 1;etitioner, the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. seeking interim mzrintenance of Rs.5O,O00/- per month pending disposal of M.C.No.264 of

2023. She claimed that she was married to the respondent on LO.O2.1989 and they had three daughters during their wedlock. She alleged that the respondent neglected his responsibilities, entered into a second marriage with one Sunitha in December 2003 after fraudulently obtaining an ex parte divorce decree, and failed to support her and their daughters. She further stated that she had been maintaining herself and her daughters with the support of her parents and brothers and incurred substantial expenses towards education, marriage, and medical treatment. She also disclosed filing D.V.C.No.2O of 2016, in which she was granted various reliefs including maintenance and compensation, and stated that the respondent had only been paying Rs.23,OO0/- per month pursuant to the modified order of the appellate Court. \r. 3 sl(s,J Crl.P.No.31O4 & 5104 of 2o.25

6. On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting the marriage and paternity, opposed the petition contending that he was ousted from the matrimonial home in the yeat L999 and that the conduct of the petitioner was abusive and aggressive. He submitted that he had obtained a divorce decree which was later set aside, and his subsequent appeal and SLP were dismissed. He claimed to have married Sunitha only after ttre ex parte divorce decree and stated that he was maintaining two children from his second marriage. He further stated that the petitioner suppressed the earlier DVC proceedings and filed the M.C. to harass him. He stated that he was already paying Rs.23,O0Ol- pet month as per the DVC appellate order and could not afford to pay additional maintenance due to financial obligations.

7. Upon hearing both sides and examining the affidavits of assets and liabilities, bank statements, and other evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier DVC order at the time of filing the petition and that she was already receiving Rs.23,O00/- per month. The trial Court further observed that the maintenance arnount sought was exorbitanU and considering the financial capacity of the : J I ! \ I 4 sKs,J Crl.P.No.31O4 & 51O4 of 2ol25 respondent, the trial Court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay an additional Rs.5,0O0/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition, over ancl above the amount already being paid, and to clear arrears rvithin three months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 to enhance the amount Rs.S,0OO/- to Rs.2O,0OO/- per month and tl.e respondent fited Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 to quash the order dated 22.OI.2O25 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.N o.264 of 2023.

8. Heard Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crt.P.No.3104 of 2O2S and the respondent No.2 in Cr1.P.No.51O4 of 2O2S as well as Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.51O4 of 2025 and for respondent in Crl.P.No.31O4 of 2025 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistanl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State in both the cases.

9. In Crl.P.No.31O4 of 2025, learned counsel for the petitioner- submitted that the order passed by the trial court is contrary to law and the evidence on record and that the trial \. 5 sKs,J Crl.P.Ito.31O4 & 51O4 of 2o.25 court failed to appreciate the material placed before it in the proper perspective, resulting in serious injustice to the petitioner /wlfe. He further submitted that the essential ingredients required for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied, and the trial Court overlooked vital documents, including the bank passbook of the petitioner marked as Exhibit Rl. Despite this, the trial Court granted Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/husband, which is inadequate and that the respondent/husband is living with an unmarried daughter and is struggling financially, whereas the petitioner/wife is residing in a three-storied house with his second wife and has admitted to earning a salary of Rs.1,50,0OO/- with a net take- home of Rs.80,0OO/-.

10. Learned counsel in Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 argued that the trial Court failed to consider the financial capacity of the petitioner and the hardship faced by the respondent/husband and her daughter, especially when the relief granted in DVC.No.2O of 2O16 is under challenge and pending before the appellate court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Crl.P.No.3104 of : I I I I 6 sl{s,J Crl.P.!to.31O4 & 51O4 of 2O2S 2025 and consequently, prayed the Court to dismiss Crl.P.No.51O4 of 2025.

11. In Crl.P.No.51O4 of 2025, learned for the respondt:nt/husband submitted that the order of the Family Court granting additional interim maintenance is contrary to law, evidence, and principles of justice and that the respondr:nt/husband is already paying Rs.23,O00/- per month a.s per an interim order in Criminal Appeal No.l19 of 2024 arising from DVC.No.20 of 2016, and the Family Court failed to explain why that amount was insufficient. The petitioner/wife, despite already receiving maintenance, filed the present case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the same facts, which amounts to forum shopping and misuse of legal process. The respondent/husband, a low-grade employee in ONGC with a take-home salary of Rs.6O,99l I - and heavy loan liabilities of Rs.15 lakhs, is financially overburdened. The trial Court orrerlooked these facts as well as the admission by the pbtitionerlwife that her monthly expenses are Rs.15,0OO/-, which she is already receiving. 7 sKs,J Crl.P.No.31O4 & 51O4 of 2ol25

12. Learned counsel in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 contended that the respondent/husband has two children from -his second marriage who are still studying and dependent on him, and this additional financial burden will severely affect his ability to support them and that the petitioner/wife owns agricultural land and a house and gets support from her family, but these facts were ignored by the Family Court. The daughter of the petitioner /wife, being a major, is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless she is physically or mentally incapable, which is not established and that the respondent/husband also alleged that the petitioner /wife has been harassing him through multiple legal proceedings, including false criminal cases and complaints to his employer. Therefore, he prayed the Court to allow Crl.P.No.51O4 of 2025 by setting aside the order dated

22.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 and consequently, prayed the Court to dismiss Crl.P.No.31O4 of 2025.

13. [n the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is to be noted that the respondent/husband r l ), i j 8 sKs,J Crl.P.No.3104 & 51O4 of 2ol25 f'; contended that he is already under linancial strain as he has two children born through his second marriage, who are still pursuing their education and are dependent on him. He submitted that this constitutes an additional financial burden and that he is already paying maintenance in proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act (DVC), wherein he is directed to pay an amount of Rs.23,OOO/- per month. He further contended that directing him to pay an additional Rs.S,OOO l- pe, month in the present maintenance case (M.C.) is excessive and not sustainable in law. He also brought to the notice of the Court that d.uring the subsistence of the divorce granted by the trial Court, which was subsequently set aside, he entered into a second marriage and is now required to support his second wife and their children. It was his case that his; monthly gross salary is Rs.61,00O/-, and he expressed his inability to comply with the impugned maintenance order, requesting that it be set aside.

14. On the other hand, the petitioner/wife filed a criminal petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance from Rs.S,OOCI l- to Rs.20,0OO l- per month, contending that the amount arnarded by the trial Court was meager and 9 sKs,J Crl.P.No.31O4 & 51O4 of 2O2S insufficient to meet her needs. She further submitted that the respondent had suppressed his actual income and that, as per the salary certificate placed on record, his gross monthly salary was shown as Rs.1,61,000/-, and th9 pay slip for the month of August 2024 indicated his gross salary as Rs.1,42,147 l- and net salary as Rs.60,991/-. She further submitted that the second marriage of the respondent is not a legalIy valid marriag€ and hence his obligation to maintain her continues.

15. The trial Court, while considering the submissions and the material placed on record, has taken note of the fact that the respondent's salary is not merely Rs.61 ,OOOf -, as claimed by him, but his gross income is significantly higher, although his net take-home salary was shown as Rs.6O,991/-. It also observed that the maintenance amount under the DVC proceedings was already modified and reduced from t, l Rs.23,0OO/- to Rs.15,000/-, arrd accordingly, the trial Court awarded Rs.S,O0O /- per month in the present maintenance case, keeping in view the totality of circumstances. \ \ 10 srr.s,J Crl.P.Ito.31O4 & 5104 of 2o25 -'Ai ! :l

16. On appreciation of the record, this Court is of the considerrsd view that there is no apparent illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court. It appears that the trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciousiy and reasonably while'granting interim maintenernce of Rs.S,OOO/- per month to the petitioner lwife, taking into account the amount already being paid under DVC proceedings. As such, there are no valid grounds made out either to set aside the said order as sought by the respondent/husband or to enhance the interim maintenance as praye(l by the petitioner/wife. Therefore, both the criminal petitions filed by the respective parties are devoid of merits and the siame are liable to be dismissed.

17. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR & ,,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar' 2. One CC to SRl. U V SURESH KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. M PRATHEEK REDDY Advocate [OPUC] I /

4. Two CCs to SRI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, HYderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies I GR/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:A410812025 ,'a \ \ l.\ \ COMMON ORDER CRLP.Nos.3104 AND 5104 of 2025 I -) * * lHE S t4 (\ ('

2. C) 20t{ott M PaTcu f'O * DISMISSING BOTH THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS t t