The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memcrandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order passed in Criminal Rev Ptn. No.712024, Dl- 07lO2t2O25 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy to the extent is against the petitioners. 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 direct the Responden!1 to pay the interim maintenance to the Petitoner-1 as directed by lAddl. Judicial Magistrate, Wanaparthy, in Crl. MP No.380/2024 in MC No.1/2024, Dt:12.O9.2024 by suspending the order passed in Crl. Rev. Ptn.No.7/ 2024, Dt:O7.O2.2O25 on the file of the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Wanaprthy, pending Quash Petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri NEELI RISHI KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Sri. J Ashvini Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following: ORDER ;r:XXWry _, ,,1,.11..- _ ,/ - /1j THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETrrroN No.3456 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 o[ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 lo quash the order dated 07.O2.2O25 passed in Crl.R.P.No.7 ot 2024 bv thc Principal Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy. ... The pelitioner No.l, who is thc legally u'cdded u'ife of respondent No. 1, has flted this petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son (2nd petitioner). The marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.I u'as solcmnized on 25.01 .2OlO and at the time of marriagc, thc parcnls of petitioner No.1 presented 10 grams of gold chain and gold ring to respondent No.1 and gave an amount of Rs. 10,OOO/- as Adapaduchu Katnam. The petitioncr No.1 allcges thal- respondent No.1 started harassing her after the marriage, due to his physical handicap. She claims that rcspondent No.l's ,-'ri1y members also supported his brother who tried to outrage her modesty, and she was eventually thrown out of the house' The petitioner No.1 is now residing with her parents and minor son. It is further alleged that respondent No.1 is a software 2 '_ ri ij , .j* .$l \ engineer at Allsec Technolog,, Chennai and has a significzurl incomc. He os,ns ancestral property, including iand and a trvo storicd builcl ing that is ren[ed out which gets an amount of Rs.54,0O0/ The respondent No. 1 also earns-income from his work as a puroh it and astrologer and earning an amount of Rs.3000/- to Rs.50OO/- per month and that respondent No.1 is an Asthana Siddhanthi of Pushpagiri peeta Maha Samsthana and wrilcs l)iLnchzrngam out of which he earns an amount of Rs.2 to 3 Lakhs through publication and selling of it.

3. Furthcr. pclitioner filed a maintenance case vide M.C.No.1 of 2024 on the filc of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanrrparthy sceking monthly maintenance of Rs. i 0,000/ t'irch to the pe titioners and seeking interim maintenirnce she lllcd Crl.M.P.No.38O of 2024. The trial court ordered rcspondcnt No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.6OO0/- to pelitioner No. I and Rs.4OOO/- to her minor son and also Rs.3O,000/- lor school fce to the concerned academic year. Aggrievecl b1, the said order, respondent No.1 herein hlccl Crl.R.P.No.7 ctf 2024. However, the revisional court par i)., allowed thc said petition, setting aside the order of maintenance to the petitiorrcr No.1 but upheld the maintenance granted to *ts<?cr!l!!:y =f-t"F y 3 the minor son. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed this criminal petition

4. Heard Sri N.Rishi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learncd counsel for respondent No. 1.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned judge failed to considcr the basic rcsponsibility rr' rcspondent No.1 to maintain his wife and child, despite having suflicient income. The court below ought to have considered the fact that respondent No. 1 is an educated person with a B.Tech degree, working as a software engineer, performing Purohitam work, and also earning substantial income from rents, etc. He further contended that the court belorv erred in concluding that the dismissal of interim maintenance petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act bars petitioner No.l from claiming maintenancc under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The court below erred in concluding ,,'.-i rhe petitioners' failure to challenge the interim maintenance order passed in HMOP No.67 of 2021 disentitles her from claiming maintenance under the present petition. 4

6. Thc cor-rrt below failed to consider the basic objective of granting maintenancc under Section 125 of the Cr.p.C, which is to provide for the maintenat-rce o[ a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children. The court beklv ignored Lhe settled larv that a husband is bound to maintain his wife and children, providing lood and shelter, and that responclent No.1 has sufficient incomc to do so. Thc court belou. crroneously set aside the maintenance granted to petitioner No.l, concluding that she rs not entitled to rnaintenance duc to the dismissal ,l-., t an earlicr mirintcrrirnc(. petition.

7. The contention of learncd counsel for respondent No.1 is that there is no illegalitl. in the order of trial Court in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2O24. The Court bclon, rightly observed that petitioner No. t herein has not filed any appeal against the interim maintenance petition which was dismisscd zrnd had attained finatity. He furthcr submitled that in I.A.No.307 of 2022 in G.W.O.P.No.6 ol 2022 filed by respondent No.I seeking interim custocly of the child, the trial Court dismissed the sairi petition observing that respondent No.1 is deperrding on itis parents and also on physically handicap pension zrnd when he is unable to maintain himsr:lf, the question of maintaining the /:' ',,/ I 5 ninor child does not arise. When there is a pleading of petitioner No.1 that respondent No.1 has no income to maintain himseif and the minor child, now she cannot claim maintenance stating that he is having sufhcient income. for payment of maintenance. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of trial Court and there are no merits in this petition and prayed this Courl to dismiss this petition.

8. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the only question that has to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner-wife is entitled Ior interim maintenance in pending proceedings in M.C.No.1 of

2024. 'f!; e petitioner No. t herein filed Cr1.M.P.No.380 of 2024 in M.C.No. 1 of 2024 claiming maintenance of Rs. 1O,O00/- to her and Rs.5000/- to petitioner No.2 and also school lee of Rs.45,OOO/ After hearing both sides, the trial Court awarded ar-r amount of Rs.6000/ to petitioner No.1 and Rs.4O00/- to petitioner No.2 and also Rs.3O,OOO/- towards school fee for the concerned academic year. The appellate Court observed that no io.:ument is filed to prove the income of respondent No.1 herein and petitioner No. t herself stated that her husband has no income to maintain the minor child, as such, sets aside the 6 .) order of the trial Court to the exLent of payment of maintenance to the .*.ife and upheld the maintenance awarded to the minor child. In thc trial Court and also in the Revislon, it is not the case of respondenl No-l hcrein that petitioner No.1 is having sufhcient income to maintain herself. Respondent No.1 herein in G.W.O.P.No.6 of 2022 stated that petitioner No.1 is depending on her parents and she cannot maintain the minor child, ',r,hich itself shows that wife is not having any income to maintain herself. When t he Revisional Court accepted the maintenance awardcd to the minor child, the samc logic appii,,; to the wile zrlso. When the appellate Court upheld that Rs.4OOO/- can be paid b1, the father to the minor child which shows that respondent No.1 is having sufficient income to provide maintenance to rhe child. The trial Cour[ though observed th:rt documents .1re filed to prove the income of husband, the1. were not marked. As it is an interim application, the responden t No. t has to provide interim maintenance to petitioner No.1- r,r,ife a1so. It is not the stage to decide the income of respondent No. I in detail. As such, the order of :he revisional Court is heretry set aside conhrming the order of the trial Court, w,,) ;. 7 t-). Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.7 of 2O24 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy by conhrming the order dated 12.()9.2024 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.38O of 2024 in M.C.No.l of 2024 by the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed Sd- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ffirr,"=* SEC To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Principal Sessicns Judge, Wanaparthy. The I Addl. .lr-idrcial i\/agistrate, Wanaparthy One CC to SRi NEELI RISHI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRr .l ASH'/lNl KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to I'UBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:23l06/2025 ORDER CRLF.No.345{i of 2025 r4 fr-""t t- ,-) .L \ 2E IIJBM z a t D5. S PATC rrEg t. CRITVIINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q @ 7l g