ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL RPVISION CASE N

1. Kannam Kalyan @ Sridevi, Wo.Aroop, Age 31 years, Occ. House Maker, Rio. Parupally Village, Mandal Kotapally.

2. Kanna Sanvi, D/o.Aroop, Age 10 years, Occ. Student, Rep. by her mother and natural guardian i.e. Petitioner No.1

3. The State of Telangana, Through Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of ....-RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER NO,1 & 2 Telangana, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/FORMAL PARTY IA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2022, Dated 1010412024 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial and its consequential judgment in DVC No. 6 of 2019 on the file of Prinicpal Judicial l\/agistrate of First Class at Mancherial- Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI. YOGITA PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: SRl. E. GANESH, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL RPVISION CASE N0.718 0F 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, l9T3 (for stLort ,Cr.p.C.) aggrieved by the Judgment dated 10.04.2022 in Crirninal Appeal No.32 of 2022 passed by the learned principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial (hereinafter referred as the learned appr:llate Court) confirming the order dated 19.09.2022 in D.V,C.No.06 of 2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur (hereinafter referred as 'the learned trial Cor:rt,).

2. Heard Sri Kondadi Aj ay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State-respondent No.3 and Ms.Yogitha prakash, learned arnlcus curies appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this criminal revision case are that respondent No.l is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 15,06.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage, parents 2 of respondent No. 1 gave dowry of 16,00,000/- cash, 16 tulas of gold and other house hold articles. After their marriage, they lived happily for one year and they were blessed with respondent No.2. Thereafter, petitioner and in-laws of respondent No. 1 started harassing her, demanding addition dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. The petitioner used to harass respondent No. 1 in drunken condition by keeping illegal relationship with another woman and he did not provide minimum needs to respondent Nos. I and 2. On several occasions panchayats were conducted, but there is no change in the attitude of the petitioner. On

03.O1.2017 , the petitioner and his family necked out respondent Nos.1 and 2 by abusing and beating them. The respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in Crime No.714 of 2OlZ on the file of the Kotapalli Police Station for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4 The learned trial Court has passed the following order: i. A protection order under Section 18 of the Act is herebg granted in fauour of the petitioners, thereby the respondents or ang other person purportedly acting on their behalf ore hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic uiolence. ii. Amount of Rs.3,OO,O00/ - i.s herebg granted in respect of compensation. Respondent No.1 i-s directed to pag an amount of Rs.3,OO,)OO/ - to petitioner No.1 totuards compensation uithin six months from the date of the order. 3 iii. The monitory relief under Section 20(d) of t,\e Act is herebg granted in fauour of petitioners, thereby respondent No. 1 is directed to pag intertm maintenance of Rs.15,O0O/ - t:er month to petitioner No.1 and Rs. 10,000/ per month to petitioner No.2, total Rs.25,OO0/ - per month from the date of the petitton totDdrds interirn maintenance bg depositing into her account prouided bg Ircr and respondent No-1 shatt pay matnte nance on or before 1Ot, of euery succeeding month. iu. The residential order under Section 19 of tlrc Act is hereby granted in fauour of petitioner, therebg respona'.ent No.1 is directed to paA rent amount of Rs.3,OOO/ - Oer month front the date of the petitton. Aggieued by the same, the pe-titioners preferred the appeat.

5. The learned appellate Court vide Judgment dated 1O.O4.2O24 dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.l\2 of 2022, conflrming the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Revis Lon Case is preferred

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would sub mit that the petitioner is always law abiding citizen and willing to comply with the order passed this Court, however he would sublnit that it is difhcult to pay the maintenance to the respond(rnts as the petitioner 1S drau,ing only Rs.38,0OO/- by working as Forest Guard, Chandrapur village and also have family resconsibilities. Hence, seeks indulgence of this Court to reduce the rnaintenance 4 as the order of the trial Court is out of the financial capacity of the petitioner

7. Opposing the same, Ms.Yogitha Prakash, learned amicus curie appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 would submit that the petitioner did not produce the original sa-lary certifrcate before the trial Court. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is earning a sum of Rs. 1,00,0O0/- and in the counter before the trail Court, counsel for the revision petitioner has produced a Xerox copy of the salary certificate, which shows the salary particulars for the month of March, 2022 and April, 2022 and deductions were shows as Rs.6O,OO0/-, which itself is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is earning more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence interference is unwarranted and seeks to dismiss the revision case.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the counsel, this Court does not see any reason or ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned trial ald appellate Courts. However, keeping in view of long pendency of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order of the learned trial Court so far as the order granted under Section 20(d), the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1O,OO0/- to respondent 5 No.1 towards maintenance and the maintenancc granted to respondent No.2 i.e., Rs.10,000/-, is remains sarne. The residential order to pay rent amount i.e., Rs.3,000t- is remains sarne. So far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,.00C /- towards compensation and the same is deposited to the crt:dit of D.V.C No.O6 of 2Ol9 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur, within a period of three (03) months. The petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount on or before 10th day of every calenderr month and to deposit the accrr-ted arrears if any from the date of petition to the credit of D.V.C No.06 of 2O19 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur, within a period of six (06) months from today.

9. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL oEpuw REGTsTRAR i I SECTION OFFICER To, N. '1 . The Principal Sessions Judge, Mancherial. 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telanllana at Hyderabad (our)

4. One CC to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUCI 5 One CC to SRl. YOGITA PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:2410112O25 ORDER CRLRC.No.718 of 2024 A lirE S t:4 f..$ J) ) t I 2 0 ,lult M (<\( 9, + DaSD.,.t-r I DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 1 6 t