The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Jonathan Counsel for the ResF,ondent No.1: Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri M. Rathan Singh The Court made the f cllowing: ORDER - THE HON'BLE SMT, JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.218 OF 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order daled 29.10.2024 in ti/.C.No.39 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, l\/edchal- Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri (for short "trial Court")

2.. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the fi/laintenance Case before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Jonathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri lvl.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that maintenance can be granted if the husband has neglected the wife and if she cannot maintain herself but in the present case the husband has not neglected the wife and that she left the matrimonial house on her own and it is an admitted fact that she is working women and is earning a good amount to maintain herself, therefore, the trill court has committed an error in granting the maintenance in 2 favour of the wife. He further submitted that a petition was filed vide Crl.M.P No 7:i of 2017 in M.C.No.39 of 2017 for interim mainlenance, which was dismissed but no revision is preferred against the said orders. The trial Court failed to appreciate the said fact and has granted Rs.25,0001 per month rn the present maintenance case. He further argued that a wrong affidavit is filed by the petitioner before the trial Court and that when she has left the society of the husband on her own, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. She worked in multinational companies and is earning lumpsum salaries and now she is working in a private company and that the respond,:nt-husband is only a graduate and is doing a small job. He further argued that the petitioner-wife has 55% disability and she is entitled to Rs.4,0001 per month towards Disability Pension Scheme and she also has the facilities of reservation under Physically Handicapped Category in the jobs, therefore' she has plenty of opportunrties and further, he submitted that the respondent- husbandhasgiverrRs-5Lakhstothepetitioner-wifeandtherefore, further amounts need not be granted to the petitioner-wife' He I therefore, prayed tc, set aside the orders passed by the trial Court'

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has given a very reasoned order granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife and that the respondent-husband is earning more than Rs.1 Lakh per month and that he has filed a false affidavit before the trial Court and he has also some immovable assets and in fact the maintenance of Rs.1 Lakh can be granted in favour of the petitioner-wife who is a disabled lady and she is still in job hunt as she lost her earlier job

6. Perused the record 7 . The record reveals that the petitioner before the trial Court is a physically handicapped lady and that after disclosing everything about her disability and her qualification that she has completed MCA and also that she was working in a software company, the family members of the respondent agreed for the alliance and the marriage was performed and after the marriage they started harassing her. The qualification of the respondent was revealed as B-Com, C.A., and ICWA (lnter), and that he was working at Chennai and drawing a salary of Rs.45,000/- per month prior to the marriage" It is further revealed from the record that after she joined the society of her husband at Chennai, there were many incidents happened, her in-laws went there and resided with them, initially they have \ .l -! instigated the respondent and that the respondent Ltsed to beat her indiscriminately with hand and TV remote, several other incidents of harassment were also narrated. That they further harassed to bring additional dou,ry of Rs.5 lakhs for purchasing a car At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner have given dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.3 lakhs. That the respondents h,:ve demanded Rs.4 Lakhs as dowry and Rs.25.0001 towards Aadapaduchu Lanchanam and finally, she was necked out and after that s;he has been staying with her parents lt is further revealed from the record that the respondent husband has properlies at Machilipatnam. She therefore, prayed a maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month B The respondent also filed counter denying the averments of the petition and on other hand he alleged that the petitioner never merged into their family and that she never used to do any work and also that when the petitioner's family expressed their inability to perform marriage they have given a sum of Rs.S Lakhs to the family members of the petitioner for marriage expenses and for the reason that she has contpleted MCA and that she is an educated woman with a previous work experience at Chennai, he agreed for the marriage on humilnitarian grounds considering her disabilitv but that ,- 5 the petitioner could not adjust with the household responsibilities and responsibility towards the family members and never used to cook food for his parents and used to invite quarrels on petty issues. She left his society on her own.

9. Before the trial Court, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to 410 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondent, RW1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R31 were marked

10. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has granted a maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of petition and also has directed to pay the arrears within three months in three installments. The respondent is aggrieved by the said orders.

11. lt is borne out by record that the respondent has averred in his counter that at Chennai he has paid an advance of Rs.50,0001 towards the rented house hold and was paying a rent of Rs.7,800/- per month. lt is elicited during the cross examanation of PW1 that she has completed her MCA and thereafter she worked in HCL, Chennai and Globe Networks, Hyderabad and at present she is not doing any job and she is on job search. ^\= 6 -

12. lt was held in Sunith Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwahal , thal merely becau se the appellant wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Mere ly because the wife was earning something, it would not be a grourrd to reject her claim for maintenance. However in the present case t is elicited during the evidence that previously she worked in an tvlNC but now she is not working

13. According to the petitioner, it is the respondent who has refused and neglected to maintain her from 27.10.2016 but the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner herself deserted him from 27 10 2016, thus it is clear that the wife is living separately 'from 27 .10.20 '1(i, in which case she needs some amount to maintain herself and it is ,rlso an admitted fact that she is a handicapped lady '14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court rn K.Jayaram v. Bangalore Development Authoritf and /?am Kumar v. Sfate of Uttar Pradesh3 and that in the present casr: the wife has not disclosed her income and has played fraud anc therefore, she cannot be granted any relief. The wife has stated before the trial Court that she used to work in an ' (20t4) 16 scc 7 rl t (2021) tL suprcnrc ('orrrr Cases 8 I 5 ] Civil Appcal No.-ll:3 c,ll0ll. datc 28.09.2022 7', 7 I MNC but that right now she has unemployed. She has never concealed any information, he has also stated that she has done MCA and worked in software companies. Therefore, the said case laws are not applicable to the present case.

15. RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that since

27.10.2016 they were not staying together and he did not issue any legal notice to the petitioner to join his conjugal society and that he has filed divorce OP against the petitioner. He further admitted that earlier he has filed a divorce OP at Family Cou(, Chennai in the month of August, 2017 and that he has not paid any amount to the petitioner during the pendency of the case till date. Thus, it is elicited that it is the respondent who chose to seek divorce before the Family Court though he says that he is willing to take back the respondent to his society, his own admrssion that he has not issued any notice for inviting the petitioner to the conjugal society and also the admission that he has filed a divorce OP itself reveals that he had no intention to continue the relationship with the petitioner - wife

16. The fact remains that the petitioner is staying at her parents place and is.jobless. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that being physically handicapped she gets disability pension and that she had better opportunities under :- 8 physically handicapped quota, cannot be considered to be the grounds for re jecting the maintenance. The petitioner being disabled needs more support than a normal individual. Though she is qualified, the respondent could not prove that she is employed

17. On the other hand, the employment of the husband is proved and also he h as admitted that he has taken house on rent and he further stated that it is the family of the petitioner whtch is poor and that they were not able to perform the marriage and that they have agreed on hr rnanitarian grounds, which itself shows that he contends that they belong to higher economic status, when compared to the family of the petitioner

18. The respondent has failed to adduce sufficient evidence before the trial Court stating that the petitioner has voluntarily disserted him tle has also not adduced any evidence to show that the petitioner is earning a regular salary

19. ln Rajneslr v. Nehaa, the Apex Court held that the wife and children are to be maintained on par with the standards in which the husband is living ln view of the principles laid down in Ralnesh's case, it is the boLrnden duty of the husband to maintain his wife and '(2o2ttl scc -l:-t 9 he cannot simply neglect her on the pretext that he is having meager earnrnqs.

20. lt is also brought out before the trial Court that the respondent I is working as Finance Admin Business Analyst in lBf\4 lndia Private Limited and is drawing a salary of Rs.73,470l- per month. He submitted that he is spending a sum of Rs.41 ,1291- towards loans and parents expenditure and has also submitted that he is spending Rs.1 1 ,000/- towards rent and other amounts towards his own I maintenance and it is pertinent to observe in this regard that the amounts paid towards the loans do not fall under the compulsory contribution and hence, they cannot be taken as acceptable deductions from the total income. Admittedly, the respondent belongs to higher economic status and the family also owns properties at Machilipatnam. He is earning a handsome salary of Rs.73,4701 per month in a multinational company i.e. lBtvl, therefore, the amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.25,000/- per month awarded to the petitioner from the date of petition is just and reasonable, therefore, it does not need any interference. Further, the trial Court has directed to pay the arrears within three lxonths of time in three installments, which is also justified. In view of the above held discussion the maintenance amount awarded by the trial ( ... IO I Court appear; to be justified and the revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed 21 . In the re,sult, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. JVliscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. s /. T. VIJAY KUMAR LITY REGISTRAR D \ To, //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge-cu amily Court, Medchal Malkajgiri Distn )t at Malkalgirr.

2. Two CCs to tht: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OL)T]

3. One CC to Sri (i, Jonathan. Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri tU. Rathan Singh, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL w HIGH COUR-I- DATED:1il41V2025 tj \r*' .//:.9 i-/r1 ,:|: ') ,') + -ri r$ :l ORDER CRLRC.No.218 o12025 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE I