The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusir; the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumr:rts of Sri BANAVATH NAGESHWAR RAo, Advocate for the Petitioner and the {i ri surepalli prashanth, Asst. Public Prosecr:tor on behalf of the Respondent \ o.1 and of Sri p. lMadhukar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUI{ANTI CRIMINAL PETITION N0.6401 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal petiticn is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ,BNSSJ by petitioner to set aside the docket order, dated 27.12.2024, passed ir.r Crl.M.p.No.131 of 2024 in MC.No. i74 of 2023 on the file ol the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. B. Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Surepalii prashanth, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for responclent No.1 _ State ancl VIr. p, Madhukar, learned counsel lor r.espondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the material on record. 3 . Petitioner and respondent No. 2 are wife and husband. Their marriage was performed on 26.11.2020 at Yadagirigutta Temple. They were blessed with a child and iived together (in joint fam il-v) at l(hairtabad, Hyderabad. It is the case of respondent No.2 that differences arose between them, that petitionerrld to make demalds and i!:::. \ - 'rt::.:l.1. - 2 .rAK, I ( !{LP 6r0r 2025 beat her for additionai dowry. As there was 11.) change in petitioner's behaviour, respondent No.2 lodger'i a complaint against him. Or-r the basis of complaint, arr :rlR bearing No.436 ol 2O'.2i came to be legistered under li:ction 4984 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') ar :l Sect;.ons 3 and 4 of Dou,r,r' Prohibi*.ion Act, 196 1 (for shc -t 'DP Act'). It is alleged tha: she consumed poison to comm i suicide and oresently she is staying ir-r her sister's hou:trr and totaily clependent on sister. That her husband/grl:i itioner has suflicient income, he ls receiving an amount c,i ?s.5O,000/- per month as rents. That altogether, petitione| is getting an amoLrnt of Rs.B0,0O0/- per month 4- Responclenr" No.2/u,ife (eind responden tlo.3, mlnor child) filed a rnaintenance case bearing |Io.: ;4 of 2023 under Se cticrL 125 of Code of Crirninai Proceclt tre (for short 'Cr.P.C'). Thereafter, they filed Crl.M.P.No.1i] I of 2024 rn MC.No.l74 ol 2023 under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C before the Family Ccurt, Ranga Reddy District at l..,l3.Nagar, for interim mainl-enance. Learned .,-udge after con-;idering the averments in the petition granted interim ma,r 'rlenance ald .,) i^k, I aRLt 610r 20li directed petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 I per month to w,ife arrd Rs. 15,000/- to minor child from the date ol iiling of petitioi-, tiil disposal of MC. Monthll, maintenance has to be paid b.y lOrh of every month.

5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 brought to ti'rc notice of this Court that for the last six (6) months lrom the date of trial Coui-t's order, maintenance amount iras not becn paid to responcient Nos.2 and 3 as directed, An amount of Rs.35,OO0/- per month has to be paid and is not being paid.

6. Perused the petition filed under Section 125 ol Cr.P.C. and the details of assers and liabilitics of respondent No.2 herein as per RaJnesh v. Neha and. anothert. In the table of the details of assets and liabilities declared, by respondent No.2 hercin, at clause A(4), it is stated that, she is staying in a separate residence. But, in the petition filed under Section l2S of Cr.p.C., at paragraph No.S, she stated that "she is staying with her slsfer, she is dependent on her ".,jrgj," family,,. Ar clause ' lzou t1 z scc :z,t ...-. *:;:; -r- \ ffi*e-?EBlg . T.' r -j.x \ 4 r\( .l !.,11, 6tlrl tl)ti G(a) of the detajls of assets and liabilities (. !r 'lared, 1t is stated that, she has 100 sq. yards propertr'. roint family property. 11 i:; averrcd in the petition that lrcr I-rusband's monthlv sal,lr_\r is Rs.50,000/- and ar rncome cf Rs. 10,00O/- per month 7, Pcrusecl the record, considered the ave ;r:cnts irr \4C petitron. detrLils of assets ancl liabilities rlr t'l:lr-ed, the averments rn tllrs criminal peti'Lion. Having cc .:r,rdcred, Lhis Cotirt is ol the opinion that maintenancr: iLmount of Rs.35,0007 pcr month granted to responden \os.2 anci 3 in Crl.M.P.No 131 of 2024 in M.C.No.174 ''l' 2023 be modilied to total of' Rs.27,000 /- per mont\ instead of Rs.35,0007 .An amount of Rs.18,000/- per rrorrlh to be paid to rcspondent No.2/u,ifc and Rs.9,000/ 1;'.'r rnonth to be paid to respondent No.3/child. Petitioncr rs dirccted to pa1, the afort'said modified amounts to resp,t;nder-rt Nos.2 and 3. NeedL:ss to state that petitioner shall iLlso pay the arrears to respondent Nos.2 and 3, rvhich are r.r rpaid. rpqryrsf!.ri: - e ':.' ::Xl:1"1"'ir',' !.- : -t!tt-._ 5 JAIi, J cRI P 640 t 20ti

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sho,hada Khatoon and Others v. Amjad Ati and. Others2 held that under Section 125(3) of Cr. P. C for non compliance with order ol Magistrate to make payment ol maintenance, Magistrate has no power to impose sentence for more than one mon[h and further held that the language ol sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is quite clear and it circumscribes the pou,er of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This pov.rer of the Magistrate canno t be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiw of one mor-rth, for breach of non-compliance w,ith order o[ the Magistrate, the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief.

9. The High Court of Delhi in Mohiet Anand a. par-ul Anands, after considering the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment, held that "from the bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is evident that for a defauit of every month in payment of maintenance, the defaulter can be sent to one ' l rool; s scc orz I 202,t SCC Onlinc Det 1968 6 J\K, J CRLP 6101 l02i ,:a. month imprisonment. Therefore, for ever\ rnonth, lhe defaulter is liabie to be sent to one month imF,risonment" 1 0. Needlesr; io state that, il there is a'.rr d cfar-rlt in cornplying i,,'ilh rhc order of ti-ris Conrt, resp:rrdent Nos.2 and 3 are at liberty to enforce it by filing all appropn ate appiicalion b.:fore the trial Court 1 1 I-canred counsel lor petiticner has so -L,sht time ibr pavment of arre:rrs, as it rvoulci be a burden t., retitionci- to pa]'. the arreiirs .rL one time. I-earired counsr:l sought [br' three (3) lnst:rllrrents lor pavrrtcl:l cf arrears !2. This Corrr! ileems it appropriate to gr.rrl three (3) installrnents for payn-rent of arrears. Eacl. installment arnount shall bc Rs.70.000/ , tne same has tr; Irc and shall be pard bv 10 h of everv successivc month for l-ree mcrnths I f crrr Septem'oer, 2O25. Amount oi Rs.70,000 r- to be paid in threc ir-rslallments is the amount r,l,ith respccr to arrears and does not include any other amounts. l'-re monthly maintenance amount ol Rs.27 ,OCO / -, as dir,rc te C herein, shail be paicl to respondent Ncs.2 and 3 by l,)Lh of every :: \ 7 JAK, J ('RLP 6401 202r Inoirth frcm September, 2025. Tili then, the amount of Rs.35,OO0/ per month shall be paid, apart from payment of arrears, as indicated supra.

13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications pending, il any, shall stand closed" SD/.A.SREENIVASA REDDY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Fami{y Court, Ranga Reddy District, 2. One CC to SRl. BANAVATH NAGESHWAR RAO Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri P. Ivladhukar, Advocate (OPUC) 4. One CC to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT' HYD [OUT] 5. Two CD Coptes DA- I', HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 ORDER CRLP.No.6401 of 2025 .i " \,) 16 nt. ' 'un '.. ) \"'. DISPOSING OF THE CRLP & (o ( h