Hyderabad 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 quash the order daled. 2810212025 passed in MP No. 418 oI 2024 ln MC 78 ol 2023 by the Judge I Additional Family Court Cum XIV Additional, Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circurnstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order daled 28-02-2025 passed in M.P. No. 418 o'f 2024 in M.C. No. 78 ot 2023 by the Judge, I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. MOHD ABDUL WAJID, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of l',lone appeared for the Respondent No.2 and 3. The Court made the following ORDER: I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA Df:'4 EADA CR!MINAL PETITIO N No.4969 OF 20i!t' ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitior er seeking to quash the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in M.p.Nc,. I1g ot 2024 in M.C.No.78 of 2023 by the learned Judge, I Additiona Family Court- cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, I yderabad (for short "trial Court").

2. Heard the submissions of Mr.Mohd.Abdul \ /aijd, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitender Rao Veera nalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-Starr .

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submittec that the trial Court failed to consider the earnings of the peti.:i lner and has granted Rs.15,0001 per month to be paid to the resplndents 2 and 3. He further submitted that the petitioner is not e,a ning anything right now and that he cannot pay Rs.1 5000/- per monfl . The petition was filed by the wife of the petitioner herein me king all false allegations against the petitioner and also portrays tha he is earning handsome salary and thus, prayed interim ni intenance of Rs.50,000/- and the trial Court has granted Rs.15,000,.per month in 2 total without taking into consideration the earnings of the petitioner, he therefore, prayed to reduce the said amount' 4 None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos'2 and 3 inspite of service of notice.

5. Perused the record. 6 The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court

7. The maintenance case is still pending for enquiry' The avermentsofthepetit.onpointoutthatthemarriageofthepetitioner was performed with respondent on 26'08 2019 and that the parents of the petitioner have given Rs.S Lakhs in cash and also gave dahez articles worth of Rs.3 Lakhs, Rs.5 Lakhs to the respondent and his mother as a dowry on the occasion of paumez ka rasam and also at thetimeofmarriage,15tulasofgoldjewellery,20tulasofsilver' diamondnosepinandRs.lLakhworthhouseholdarticles. Subsequently,therespondentandin-lawsstartedharassingherfor additional dowry. Due to the said harassment, she approached BharosaCentreandtheyhavecounselledhermother.in-.|awandthe husband and they promised to look after her but again they picked up 3 quarrel on petty issues with her and on 07 'O2'2021 she was / 3 necked out of the house with a demand of Rs.2 Lal hs. Thereafter, she went to Women Police Station and lodged a r omplaint under Section 498-4 of IPC and also she filed a DVC caser. lt is alleged by her that her husband is a Software Engineer in YL Pp-TV, Jubilee Hills and that he earns Rs.1 Lakh per month.

8. The respondent has filed counter denying all the averments with regard to the dowry and the allegations of ha assment. lt is further alleged that the entire gold articles were tak rn away by the petitioner. He further, avened that once he was b,r aten up by his father-in-law and that his spectacles were broken ar C he ran to the police station and filed a complaint and they hen e sent him to hospital and he tried to get the MLC report but the pr titioner's father managed to close the said case and he further ;l rerred that the petitioner is a graduate and is working in a private c,: npany, earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and therefore, sh ) can maintain herself.

9. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court granted Rs 10,000/- to wife and Rs.5,000/- to.the child per nonth towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the said ordr: s, the present pe\tion is filed. 4

10. A perusal of the assets and liaklility statements, the petitioner herein i.e. quash petitioner has disclosed that he is working as a salesman now, as a rapido bike rider and is earning Rs'10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and he slated that his monthly expenses of himself and his mother would be Rs'10,000/- to Rs'14,000/- per month. ln support of his averment, he has filed the transactions done withthecustomersandhislDcardasrapidobikerider.Thoughthe petitioner contends that he is working as a rapido bike rider' in the petition he mentioned his occupation to be Software Engineer in YUPP-TV. lt shows that he has the capacity to work as software engineer. Though the petitioner alleges that the wife is a private employee and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month, no proof is filed in thisregard.Themaintenanceisclaimednotonlyforthewifebut also for their child who is aged three years and is staying with his mother. Therefore, some amount is required to maintain themselves andalsofortheeducationalneedsandotherchildhoodnecessities of the minor.

11. ln Ralnesh v- Nehal , the Apex Court held that the wife and children are to be maintained on par with the standards in which the husband is living. I ' (2021) 2 scc 324 5

12. ln view of the principles laid down in Rajnesft s case, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife rnd.son and he cannot simply neglect them on the pretext that he is having meager earnings.

13. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances rf the case, it is opined that an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent Ilo.3 if granted towards the interim maintenance, it would be justifia lle in this case, Hence, the total maintenance amount is reduced ,i:m Rs.15,000/_ per month to Rs.10,000/- per month to meet the ends of justice.

14. ln the result, the Criminal petition is parfly arl rwed modifying the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in M.p.No.,{ lB of 2024 in M.C.No 78 of 2023 by the learned Judge, I Additiorri I Family Court_ cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, lyderabad and the quantum of interim maintenance is reducec from that of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.'10,000/- per month (Rs.7,000/. to respondent No.2/wife and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.3/son) ar I the petitioner herein is directed to pay the same on or before 10u, rf every month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. 5 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed' SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY/T i CTION OFFICER To,

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

2. One CC to Sri. MOHD ABDUL WAJID, Advocate [OPUC]. 3. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT].

4. Two CD Copies TTS/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2510812025 ORDER CRLP.No.4969 ol 2O25 t c.J 'tl t i/. 2 2 JAt' 2026 \- r tP,\ CRIMINAL PET]TION IS PARTLY ALLOWED \t