High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to set aside the impugned orders passed by the !91ned Judicial Magistrate of First class(Spl. I\/obire), at Karimnagar in crl. M. P. No. 1003 of 2018 in D.V.c. No 94 of 2oi\ dated. zl tl r/2018 aJconfirmed in crl. R.c. No. B of 2023 dated. 30t1ot2oz4 by the Learned speciar Judge for Trial of cases under scs / srs / (poA) Act-cum-lll Additional sessions J-udge, Karimnagar as an abuse of process of Law; l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay all proceedings in crr. tvr.p. No. 1003 of 2019 in b.v.c. No. 9c o'f 2018 dated.2111112022 on the file of the Judicial First class Magistrate (Spl. Mobile) Karimnagar as confirmed in crl. R. c. No. B of 2013 dated.3ot1ot2oi4 by the Learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs / STs (pOA) Act_ Cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar; This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusin g the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K RAJANNA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veera Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appear for the Respondent No.2; The Court made the following: ORDER 7 ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETIT ION No.3738 ot 2025 I have heard Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This criminal petition is filed seeking quashment of the order, dated 30.10.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No.B of 2023 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-lll Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

3. The petitioner is the revision petitioner/respondent in Crl.M.P.No.1003 of 2018 which was filed by respondent No.2 herein seeking interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month pending the proceedings in D.V.C.No.94 of 2018. The Court below having considered the merits, partly allowed the petition and granted Rs.2,500i- per month towards interim maintenance to be paid on or before '1 Oth of every succeeding month from the date of petition till the date of disposal of main case. Aggrieved thereby the respondents preferred revision under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DVC), vide Crl.R.C.No.8 of 2023. The revisional Court in the impugned order affirmed the order of the trial Court. Disputing the proprietary of the order, present criminal petition is filed. i I I t 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Courts below failed to consider that the petitioner herein is only an .' agriculturist having Ac.2.30 gts., of land without much income to meet respondent No.2's claim for maintenance. Further, respondent No.2 has filed application under Section 125 (2) of Cr.P.C., vlde M.C.No.57 oI 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, seeking interim maintenance, wherein Rs.2,0001 per month was granted. That apart, respondent No.2 also filed petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, seeking interim maintenance, wherein, the Court below has awarded Rs.2,.0C0/- per month. ln all, respondent No.2 has been granted Rs.6,500/- towards interim maintenance and the sum is beyond his capacity. Therefore, prayed for quashing the interim maintenance granted in the proceedings of DVC.

5. I have perused the material on record

6. The orders passed by the Courts below are evidencing the fact that the occupation of the petitioner being agriculturist has been considered. Further, the counter filed in the interlocutory application of the divorce application or DVC petition, there is no reference as to granting of any interim maintenance by other Courts. Howsoever, Courts having considered the entries in dharani portal and the agricutfural lands in the name of respondent No.2 have granted interim maintehance. Notably in the maintenance case referred to by tlp - $

1.. v pe Uoner, rne aspect ol granting of Rs.2,5004 per month as interim maintenance to respondent No.2 in the DVC has been mentioned and was also considered. The contest that in the interim maintenance petition in DVC proceedings and even before the revisional Court, respondent No.2 has not mentioned about granting interim maintenance in other parallel petitions is not appealing as the petitioner also did not chose to avail the oppcirtunity to bring the relevant facts to the notice of the Court. That being the position considering the unrebutted pleading that the revenue records are reflecting the land admeasuring Ac.13.00 gts., at Elabotharam --village in the name of the petitioner and the pleadings of the respondent No.2 that the income of the petitioner is Rs.25,000/- per month, no illegality is found in granting of Rs.2,5001 per month as interim maintenance. Thus, this Court finds no impropriety in the order passed by the revisional Court and in the absence of any tenable ground for admission, this criminal petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed 7 . ln the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. B. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed ,r8$'iJ-.'j"''ti[EE //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER The Soecial Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs / STs (POA) ;'fi;5;;i s;.si"ons Judse Karimnasar rno .trdicial First Class rvr'qitt;t" (Spl' Mobile)' Karimnagar *:S3I"'fi l,f lsl,gSe"t+Sf iLon'3"?natHyderabad Act-Cum-lll (our) \ To, 1 .7 4 5. Two CD CoPies ,tu VSM/PSL i tl.&'l , I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 lrif. Si,1 l(. ' .,: .! .) 2 E uny zus 7 c .L I ,( D t.s aaTalt! . " =-:t--:rr- ORDER CRLP.No.3738 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION