The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 442(1) BNSS Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in t\I.C. No.415 of 2022 passed by trail court dt 05-12-2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VITTAL PALANGTHOD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mrs. GUDIPATI SRIDEVI Counset for the Respondent No.2:Mrs.Shalini Saxsena,Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 240 0F 202s ORDER: This criminal Revision case is filed to set aside the order dated 05.12.2024 in M.c.No.415 of 2022 passed by the rearned Judge, I Additional Family court-cum-xlv Additional tVletropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short "trial Court").

2. Heard the submissions of sri vittal parangthod, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Sridevi, learned counsel for respondent No.'1.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that he is paying a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and he is finding it difficult to pay the same as he is not earning anything right now and he is frequently on loss of pay leaves. He further argued that though he works in HSBC Bank, due to his ill-hearth, he is not attending the duties regularly and thus, receiving a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- per month though his gross salary is Rs.21,000/- per month. Thus, out of the said Rs.10,000/- the petitioner has to meet his medical expenses and is unable to pay even Rs.3,000/- per month. '\ a, 2 Therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of maintenance granted to the respofldent No.1 by the trial Court.

4. The learned respondent No.1 counsel has argued that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court an amount of Rs.10,0001 was granted towards interim maintenance, against which, the petitioner herein has preferred a CRP, the High Court has reduced tlle interim maintenance amount to Rs.7,000/- per month but inspite of the said orders attaining finality, even then the petitioner failed to comply the said orders. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not been paying anything regularly even to an extent of Rs.3,000/- per month as submitted by the petitioner counsel. She further argued that the petitioner has immovable properties through which he collects rents of Rs.1,00,000/- per month and thus, has resources to maintain his wife i.e. respondent herein. She further argued that after full-fledged trial, on evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has rightly granted the maintenan of Rs.10,000/- per month, she therefore, prayed not to reduce it any further and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record. e, 3

6. The petitioner herein was the respondent in M.C.No.415 of

2022. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.1 is not in dispute. As the differences arose between them, they have been living separately and that the respondent No.1 herein is staying at maternal home. M.C.No.415 of 2022 was filed by the wife. Her contention is that at the time of marriage her parents have given dowry of Rs.5,60,000/- cash, gold ornaments of 25 tulas and 3.5 tulas of gold for bridegroom's ornaments, Rs.2't,000/- towards the clothes of the bridegroom and 1 KG silver. After the marriage, they lived together happily for a period of three months and thereafter, she was ill-treated by the in-laws and that her husband demanded for a two wheeler within a period of two months of marriage. As the time progressed, the disputes got multiplied and their relationship got strained and thus, both of them are living separately and that she was asked to leave the matrimonial home and she is residing with her widowed mother. The petitioner herein is working as a unit head in HSBC Bank and earning a salary of Rs.75,000/- per month and gets monthly rents of above Rs.1,50,000/-, therefore, she sought a maintenance of Rs.60,000/-.

7. The petitioner herein filed counter in the maintenance case denying the averments and also denied his earnings. He further 4 contended that the petitioner is a Post Graduate and working as a - teacher in a reputed school and is earning a good salary. That inspite of some panchayaths being held by the elders, nothing could be sorted out and it is further borne out from the record that the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights while the husband filed a petition for divorce B. The respondent No.1 herein got examined herself as PW1 before the trial Court. She reiterated her averments in the petition during her chief examination and in the cross examination she denied the suggestion that her mother would get a pension of Rs.30,0001 to 40,000/- and also that her mother collects rents of Rs.2 Lakhs out of the house built by her father. She admitted that she has sent a message to the petitioner herein that she is working as a teacher on 28.05.2020, but has denied the suggestion that she has been earning Rs.50,000/- per month by conducting home tuitions.

9. The petitioner herein got examined as RW1 before the trial Court and in his cross examination he admitted that he has not given any details of the job of the respondent No.1 herein and also with regard to ttie alleged rents collected by his mother-in-law. He ---7 f, admitted that mediation took place in the presence of elders at their A.K.Sangam, Secunderabad. He admitted that he never made any phone calls to the respondent No.'1 to come back. He admitted that aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prl.Family Court in FCOp No.100 ot 2021, he filed an appeat vide FC No.62 of 2024 before the High Court and the same is pending and another appeal vide FC No.84 of 2024 is also pending which is filed by the respondent No.1/wife. He feigned ignorance about the stay granted by the High Court against the divorce decree. lt is further elicited from him that his father expired and himself and his elder brother live along with their mother and that his elder brother is a Government employee. He admitted that Ex.R5 pay slip filed by him does not contain any seal or signature showing its authenticity. He admitted that he is having a house which stands in the name of his mother. He admitted that he has not filed any proof to show that he has incurred loans and is repaying them and he also admitted that he has not filed any proof to show that he has been paying interim maintenance @ Rs.4,0001 per month.

10. Thus, it is seen from the evidence on record that both the partps alleged that the other party is earning good salary and that ) they also have the income from house rents. But no proof is filed in 6 this regard, even the pay slips of the individuals are not filed. Though Ex.RS pay slip of the husband is filed as per the trial Court record, it does not bear seal or signature as admitted by RW1 However, it is an admitted fact that he is an employee of HSBC Bank and he has filed certain medical reports pertaining to super specialty private hospitals that means he has enough resources to approach the super specialty hospitals like KIMS and SVS lnsitutte of Neurosciences.

11. The suggestions put forth during the cross examination prove that the petitioner-husband has house property. He has admitted during his cross examination that he has a house which stands in the name of his mother. lt is also elicited that his brother is a Government employee. Thus, it shows that the family of the petitioner herein is of a sound economic status and has no other liabilities but for taking care of themselves. Since the petitioner herein is an employee of HSBC Bank, he is excepted to earn a good amount of salary. Though he denied the suggestion that he earns around Rs.1,50,0001 per month and stated that he is on loss of pay, getting a meager amount of Rs.'10,0001, it is hard to believe the said t verston 1 J ,|

12. lt is also elicited from the wedding card projected in the evidence that their wedding was performed in Khaja Mansion Function Hall, Banjarahills, which also elicit the standard of living of parties. Thus, it is opined that after evaluating the evidence on record, granting Rs.10,0001 towards maintenance of the respondent No.1 herein is well justified and need not be reduced. Though the petitioner herein has taken the plea that the respondent No.1 herself is working and is able to maintain herself, her income is not proved. The petitioner herein being the husband of the respondent No.1, it is his duty to maintain the respondent No.'l on par with his own standard of living. Being an employee of HSBC Bank and living in an own house which also earns certain rents, paying Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance would not cause any difficulties to him, therefore, the orders passed by the trial Court are held to be based on sound reasoning and thus, do not need any interference.

13. ln the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri Vittal Palanqthod. Advocate tOPtlCl ?TO 3 4 One CC to Srr Gudipati Sriievi, nUuo"ri" fOpUlt, Two CD Copies ABK/PSL CdP \ \ HIGH COURT DATED: 07l0Bl202s ORDER CRLRC.No.240 ot 2025 r ( ':-- '; vt 2 2 Dtc [Pl i; * D '( DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 0r5,u*