The High Court · 2025

1. Thota Sri Priya, Wo. Thota Ashwin Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Occ: House wife.

2. Baby Thota Hanvika, D/o. T. Ashwin Kumar, Aged about 6 years, Occ. Student, (Minor under the Guardianship of her mother i.e., the respondent No.1) Both are R/o. H.No.'14-17, Shivalayam Street, Narsapur Town and Mandal, Medak District. ... Revision Petitioners/Petitioners in MC. AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, At Hyderabad. 2 Thota Ashwin Kumar, S/o. Thota Satyanarayana, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. Fremont, California, United States of America, Represented by his GPA Holder Sri Thota Satyanarayana, S/o. Thota Laxmaiah, Aged About 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No-36, Lakshmana Enclave, Bollarum, Alwal, Hyderabad, vide G.P.A Dt.28-09-2023 temporarily came down to Medak. .RespondenUPetitioner in Crl.R.P.No.03 of 2O24 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the enforcement of the orders of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Medak dated.30-01-2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.03 of 2024 against the orders in Cd.M.P.No. 1 33 of 2023 in M.C.No.05 of 2023 on the file of ".'?:rr1:.+e*-Ff -t-- the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Narsapur' Medak District during the pendency of the criminal revision petition i,efore this Honourable Court. Counsel for the Petitioners :Sri B Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri N Venkataiah The Court made the following: ORDER - fr' I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE\/I EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No, 3o.20F. 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hled to sct aside the order datcd 3O.O 1.2025 passed in Crl'R'P'No 03 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.133of2023inM.C.No.0Sof2023bythePrincipal District & Sessinos Judge at Medak (for short "Sessions Court")'

2. Heard the submissions of Sri B'Chinnapa Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N'Venkataiah' learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned petitioners counscl has submitted that the Sessions Court ought not to have intcrfered with the orders passed by the Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magislrate of First Class at Narsapur, Medak District (for short "triai Court") granting interim maintenance of Rs.20,oo0/- per month to the petitioners herein,whileitisreducedtoanexlentofRs.l5,o00/.permonth by the Sessions Court The learned counsel further contended that the husband of the petitioner No' 1 is residing in US and is emptoyed over there earning handsome amount of more than Rs.1,50,000/- per month and that actually iL was with the money of the father of the petitioner No l that the respondent No 2 got educated at US and after finding a job' he is ncglecting the l ! I I I I l ,l 2 petitioners ircrcin. The counsel further contenclt d thtrt the orders granting the i,terim maintenance are interlocutr,r,, ir-r nature and thus, thc revisional Court dicl not have an1, jrtrisclrc.iion to entertain the revision I,"tition .t all. He further sul ruiLte.d that tlre pctitioners are zrggrieved by the orders of rhe Scssrons court zrs i[ hars reduced ihe mairl:enance amount to il nrcagcr sum of Rs.15,00O/- rvith *,hich the petitioners cilrrnol marntai'r themselves. Thc petitioner No.2 is a school gorrrg; child ancl thc petitioner No. I is joblcss and they have cven. righr to get maintained in the same standards on par \r.rt1 that of the respondent No.2-husband and thus, hc prayed c set aslde the orders passed by the Sessions Judge. He furth.r .onlcncred that since the respondent No.2 is residing at US, he Ir er; given GpA to his faLher and ir is the father,s affidavit which wers 1ilecl in thc MC casc beforc the Lrial Court which is not maintainzr l>lc

4. The learne<l counscl for respondent No.2, on t[re <>ther hand, hzrs submitted rhat thc Sessions Court has perirs;cd rhe entire malerial on record and has rightly reduced tl-e qr-rantum of maintenance. Hc further submitted that the respo:r(lent No.2 has been paying thc maintenance regularry, that lr,as rLv.,arcre d by the trial Court and he further liled a statement of amounts depositecl by the respondcnt No.2 Lowards the interim mailti.nancc to the 3 petitioners herein, which shows that he has paid Rs. 1,60,000/- towards interim maintenance.

5. Perused the record

6. The record reveals that the M.C.No.OS of 2023 was ltled by the u'ife and son of T.Ashwin Kumar, seeking maintenance alleging that he left them in India and is employed at US and is neglecting them. They have also filed an application seeking interim maintcnance vide Cr1.M.P.No.l33 of 2023 in M.C.No.05 of 2023, n hich was allowed by the trial Court granting an amount of Rs.20,0OO/- pcr month to each petitioner (Rs.aO,OOO/- in total) towards interim rnaintenance. Aggrieved by the said orders, the husband i.e. respondent in MC No.S of 2023 has hled a revision beforc the Scssions Court vidc Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2024 and thc same was allowed rcducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.15,000/- per month to both the petitioners.

7. The contention of respondent No.2 - husband is that he is doing labour work at US and that he is sending money for the maintenance of the petitioners herein @ Rs.15,OO0/- per month apart from paying the school fees to his daughter and that he cannoL scnd any more amounts. The respondent No.2-husband ha\-fled Crl.M.P.No.387 of 2024 for a direction to petitioner No. I I herein to furnish her income tax details prior to her marriage and after her marriage along with bank statements zrnd the petitioners lrerein have liled Crl.M.p.No.363 of 2O24 pra\ rng Lhc Cor.lrt to direct rcspondenl No.2 husband to furnish his salarl. particulars attcstecl by his employcr and that the said petitions; are per.rcling.

8. The contention of the petitioners her:in is that the respondent No.2 - husbar.rcl is earning a handso rc salar y_ art USA and that thc pctitioners do not have any sour.ce o.incomc, that the respondcnt No.2-husband teft to USA, he did nct take his wife along ivith hirn and has dcserted her, that he is drar,r.ing monthly szrlary of I?s. i O lakhs a nd the wife does not havc arny rndepcnclent source of incorrrc and she is depending on her father rvho is a heart palient. The. petiLioncr No.2 is of six years age anC botl.r of them are rcsiding zlt Narsapur, Medak District.

9. It is also revealcd frorn the record that tht petilioncr No.1 has filed DVC No.O2 of 2023 and has also lorlg;ed a criminal complaint under Section 49g_A and Sections 3 :rrLd 4 of Dowrv Prohibition Ar:t, rvhich was numbered as C.C.No.21,l of 2023 arrd is pending. 'l'hus, iL is revealcd that many cases are 1,e nding bc,tu,een the two par[ies and that the marriage relationship i:; strained. 5

10. This Court is bound by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh o. Nehar, wherein it is held that the wife and children are to be maintained on par with the standards in which the husband is living. 1 1. Admittedly, the husband i.e . respondent No.2 is residing at USA while the wife and child are left at Narsapur. The Salary particulars and the IT returns are not hled and also the assets and liabilily statement was not hled by the respondent No.2- husband before the trial Court. The same was observcd by thc revisional Court i.e. Sessions Court and has directcd both the parlies to hle thc assets and liabiliLy statement before the trial Court in the main

12. It is pertinent to make a note that this is the interim application that was ordered for maintenance, it may take some time for the Maintenance Case to attain finality but till then the wife and daughter have to be maintained, for which they need some amount, therefore, it is just and proper to grant reasonable amount to the petitioners herein towards maintcnance for the time being. The amount granted by the trial Court tou'ards interim maintenance is found to be on a higher side, while the amount granted by the Sessions Court is found to be too low. Thus, it is ' (2021) 2 scc 324 6 opined that an amount of Rs. 15,OOO/ _ to the I ,r pr:titioncr and Rs. 10,O00/- 11; [[s lnrr petitioner would be opl ir:rlrm amount o[ maintenance, rluring the pcndency of the proceerti rgs, to meet thc cnds ofjusticc.

13. In the rcsult, the Criminal Rcvision Case is rrllou,ed and thc order dated :,0.01.2025 passed in Crl.R.p.No.[r3 crf 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.133 ol 2023 in M.C.No.OS of 2023 bv the principal District & Sr:ssirros Judge at Medak, is hereby seL asicle, dircctirrg respondent No 2 to pay an amount ol Rs. 15.( 00/, to the l.r petitioner anrl Rs.1O,OOO/- to the 2nd petitioner, on or bcfore 10u, of evcry month. Misce lliutooLrs applications pending, if an1 , shall stand closcd. SD/- P.CH.NAHABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIoN OFFIcER To, '1 . The Principal Distnct and Sessions Judge, at Medak 2. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistratr: of First Class, Narsapur, Medak District

3. One CC to Sri B Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri N Venkataiah Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. Two CD Copies ADK/PSI- fr- HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 I ) !,(. U rj lirV Ztfl[ (.\ ' 'e o -1, C'"\ f"9 ORDER CRLRC.No.3O2 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRLRC ."cDn