The High Court · 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 allow the present Criminal Petition by Quash the Order dated 16.12.2024. passed in M.P.No.347 of 2024, in M.C.No.06 ol 2024, on the file of the Judge, I Additional Family Court -Cum-XIV Additional lletropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in t ]e circumstances stated. in the. Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, ttr I High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 16.12.2024 passed n M P No 347 of 2024, in M.C.No.O6 of 2024, on the file of the Judge, I Additior 'al Family Court - Cum -XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderaba 1' This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argur rents of sri L.N BHADRIRAJU, Advocate for the Petitioner and the sri Jithendr: Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.3, and of Sri D.Viiay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVIEADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4069 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent seeking to quash the order daled 16.12.2024 passed in MP No.347 of 2024 in MC No.06 of 2024 by the Judge, l-Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri L.N. Bhadriraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additionat Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.3.

3. The learned counsel for lhe petitioner-husband has submitted that the petitioner has taken care of his wife very well, but she left his society on her own and that he used to work at Dubai and used to get good salary, but due to the cases flled by the respondent No.1-wife, on his arrival to the Airport in lndia, he was taken into custody and later he was released on bail and thus, he lost his job and is not having any earnings right now and therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial court whereunder 'Rs.40,0001 per month has been granted to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are his wife and son, towards their maintenance. \/ 2 €fD,J crl_P- No.4o69 0f 2025

4. The learned counsel for the respondent l, os.1 and 2 has submitted that ever since the day of separation, tr: petitioner has not paid a single pie to the respondent Nos.1 an< 2. He further submitted that he subjected the respondent No. I to cruelty and harassed her both physically and mentally ar- J due to the unbearable harassment; the respondent No.1 h;ti to leave the society of the petitioner and that she is taking care or their 7 year old son whose educational expenses are on the rise and that considering the said factual aspects, the trial c< urt has righfly granted maintenance of Rs.40,0004 per month ar j therefore, he prayed to uphold the same.

5. The parties hereinafter are referred to as ttr,y were arrayed before the trial court.

6. Perused the record

7. Admittedly, the relationship between the retitioner No.1- wife and the respondent-husband is strained due to'arious reasons and disputes in the family life and thus, they are i ring separately since 2017. lnspite of the reconciliation meetings, rr rthing could be resolved between both the parties and hence, the I retitioner No.1_ wife is staying at her parental house with the niror son. The -\ -- --' J EfD,J C.t,P. No.l059 ol 2025 i petitioner No.1 , therefore, needs money for the maintenance of herself and also the minor son, who is in requirernent of good education, health and overall development. Therefore, she filed the petition praying to grant an amount of Rs.B5'000/- per month towards interim maintenance.

8. lt is the contention of the petitioner No 1 that the respondent is employed at Saudi Arabia as Lighting Control Manager at ACE (UNESCO Heritage Atturaif Living Museum AD- Diriyah), ACE-Automation Control and Energy Systems and his monthly income is more than Rs.5,00,0001. On the other hand' the contention of the respondent is that the petitioner No l is a well educated lady and is a private employee and is earning good amount and thus, she does not need any amount to maintain herself. It is his further contention that he is ready to maintain the minor son and also would accept the society of petitioner No-'l , if she @mes down to join him, but the petitioner No.1 is not willing to do so' The contiention of the respondent is that since petitioner No'1 has earnings of her own, no maintenance need be granted to her' The assets and liabilities statement filed by the petitioner No'1-wife discloses her qualification as lntermediate. She has not disclosed her income in the said statement, but she stated to be a private \ =" _"_.r' 4 EfD J Ctl-P. No.1O6g ot ZOis employee in the cause tifle of the present petitilp. ln the said statement, the information provided by her in respl )t of her spouse i.e. the respondent, it is stated that he is a B.Tr::h., graduate in Electronics and that he is working as Lighting Cor trol Manager at ACE, (UNESCO Heritage Atturaif Living Museunr AD_Diriyah) at Dubai and his earnings are shown to be Rs.s,00,r) )0/_ per month. On the other hand, the respondent has filed his ass::s and liabilities statement disclosing that he is right now working ,r; a daily wage earner in a Kirana shop and is earning Rs.g,000/_ ler month and further that he has taken Rs.6,00,000/_ loan for t re purpose of treatment of his father and he alleges that the pe t tioner No. j is working in a private sector and also giving home tuitio rs and earning Rs.18,000/- per month and that her qualification is inkr mediate. 9 Thus, it is made out that both the parties t r ve not stated the truth in their assets and riabirities statements. rt is : rntended that the petitioner No.1 has passed out intermediate ard is earning Rs.'18,000/- per month. But whereas the respond,:tt, who is a B.Tech., Graduate, who was working as a Lighting Ccr trol Manager and was earning Rs.5,00,000/_, right now earning tt;.8,000/_ per month as a dairy wage worker in a Kirana shop, which : cpears to be far from truth. The petitioner No.1 has arrayed herself t,r be a private /, 5 Ero,J Ctl.P. No.1O69 ot 2025 employee in the cause title of the petition filed by her, but has stated that she is not earning anything. Thus, the truth in the averments can be made out only after a full-fledged trial. However, the impugned order of the trial court granting interim maintenance at Rs.40,0001 per month to the petitioners i.e. the wife and son of the respondent. is found to be somewhat excess than required because the petitioner No,1 also is shown to be an earning person. Though no proof of her earnings is filed, since she is arrayed as a private employee some amount of earnings can be expected from her side. Hence, providing maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month appears to be sufficient for the maintenance of the petitioner No.1 and her son, who is 7 years old.

10. Therefore, the criminal petition is partly allowed and the amount of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the trial court vrde impugned order is reduced to Rs.30,000/-. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. sD,- H ED ABDULLA KHAN STANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The I Additional Famity Court-cum-Xlv Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, HYderabad.

2. The station House offrcer, lnthegar Gunj Police station, warangal District' 3. Two ccs to tlre Public Prosecutor, High court {or the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI L.N.BHADRIRAJU' Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to SRI DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL E- HIGH COURT \ \ DATED:2sli 1tzo2s X,lES tr ! /.: \ CirJ t \..' , ( J iAll 2020 :r' \ z P * :,l;CI.\ ORDER CRLP.No.4069 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PE]'[ION .q*A n &6,