The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Syed Azmatullah Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: Sri Gulam Dastageer Khan Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Sri M. Vivekananda, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DE'/I EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.391 OF 2)25 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set a ride the order dated 07.022025 in M.C.No.28 of 2023 passed b/ the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy Distr c: at L.B,Nagar (for short "trial Court")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Syed Azm;rt rulla, Iearned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gulam Dastageer i',han, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri lr4 Vivek:ananda, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent lJr, 3 - State 3 The learned petitioner counsel has submitted t tat there is no material filed by the respondent No.1 to prove the e rrnings of the petitioner and that he has no income at all as l- e is jobless at present. He further argued that the respondent No I is earning a handsome salary and can maintain herself. He fu r her submitted that the respondent No.1 has left the petitioner on r rr own accord and is harassing the petitioner to provide maintenan;e to her. He further submitted that the petitioner still undertakes t > maintain the 1 ,t i minor daughter who is respondent No.2 but cannot maintain the respondent lJo.1 who left his society willfully.

4. The learned respondents couhsel has submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were thrown aWay by the petitioner without any mercy and that though the petitioner contends that the respondent No.'l is employed, he has not filed any proof. The petitioner is relying upon the offer letters received by the respondent No.1 but it cannot be a proof of employment. He further submitted that previously respondent No.1 was working as an Assistant Professor in Geethanjali College of Pharmacy, Cheeryal but she was fired from her job during the perigd when she suffered family disputes and was continuously applying leaves. She is jobless only because of the problems created by the petitioner. He further argued that though the petitioner says that he lost job due to recision, he has filed a document wherein it is stated that the petitioner has submitted his resignation and thus, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands and wants to shrug away from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and daughter. He further argued that respondent No.1 is not earning anything at preqent and that respondent No.2 is suffering with adenoids \ 3 problem and iurther submitted that the trial Court has given a very reasoned order and therefore, prayed to uphold the sa ne

5. Perusecl the record

6. The record discloses that respondent No.1 is le gally wedded wife of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is a rr nor daughter born out of the said wedlock. lt is borne out l record that respondent No.1 has lodged a complaint in crime No.z 75 of 2025 of WPS Saroornagar

7. lt is the case of the respondent No.1 that both t f them lead a happy marital life only for.couple of days and lrereafter the petitioner, his parents and family members start:d harassing respondent No.1 stating that they are not satisfied v ith the dowry and passed remarks, and that an additional dowry c,f Rs.1,60,0001 was also given to the petitioner but still the harassrr:nt continued even after the bi(h of their daughter and that their t tarital life got spoiled at the instigation of the family members o:' he petitioner. Thus, the relationship between both the parties is strained and there are allegations leveled against each other. F Cmittedly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are living away from the peti ioner and it is his duty to maintain them. "./ 4 8, The petitioner contends that he is jobless and he is not earning, while the respondent No. l contends that she is jobless and that the petitioner has to maintain her.

9. lt appears that both of them have filed documents with regard to the bank statements and alsc salary slips. The counsel for the respondents has pointed out the resignation letter submitted by the : petitioner to Broadridge Financial Solutions lndia Private Limited.

10. lt is borne out by record that the petitioner and the respondents are residents of twin cities. Though the petitioner has stated that he is unemployed at present, previcusly he is shown to be a Process Lead with Broadridge Financial Solutions lndia private Limited, till 09.01 .2023 and he was paid a handsome salary of Rs.70,000/-. 11 . The said documents and the bank statements, assets and liabilities of both the parties shall be analyzed by the trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, but for the present interim maintenance , 'theeds't9 be granted to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to maintain themselves. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and R.s.5,000/- per month to respondent No 2 I i l. I I I I I I I I : I I i I I I I i i i l l I I I I I I 7 ) The petitioner contends that he is ready to pay nrt inteniance for respondent No.2 but he cannot pay any maintenanc: lo respondent No.1. lt is the bounden duty of the petitioner to na ntain his wife and daughter

12. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the cas r, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.15,000/- granle j towards the interim maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 by th r trial Court is just and reasonable and cannot be reduced any furttre r.

13. ln the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disn issed Miscellaneous applications pending, if any shall stand closed SD/. K,S \r\ FE E RAMA MURTHY )l rPUTY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/' \ SECTION OFFICER \ To, L 2. 2 4 5 6 )j,r,,.,*atLBNasar' The Judse. AdditionalFamrlv Court la'1::ii iitne, ;tate ,rf Telangana at i;";e;l" the Public Prosecutor' High court f ?il3"ll:iS"'8ou."lJ" otti'"'' saroornagar wPS (Racha onda) Police station' Rachakonda District' A# ili; b; sved Azmatullah' Advocate toPU9]--' One CC to Sri Gulam Dastageer Khan' Advocate IOFL Cl Two CD CoPies kam/gh YK HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 ORDER CRLRC.No.391 ot 2025 17 ttl ry5 li),' t./ '/ DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISTON CASE q "@ &*