The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI L HARISH The Court made the following: ORDER : t I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUK'\ YARA - CRTMINAL REVISION C ASE NO .446 of 2'1125 ORDER: tleard Sri Jacob Mudi. leamed counsel for the re r ision petittoners and Sri L. Harish, learned counsel fbr respondent No'2' ['erusecl the entire record

2. Aggrieved b1' the order dated 16.01'2025 passed ir (lrl M P'No't21 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.2l8 ol' 7024 pending on the tile of the lV Additional Districr Judge' Rangareddy District at L'B r"lagar ('appellate Court'), the prcsent criminal revision case is filed to set asids the same'

3. Revision Petitioner No.l and her husband i'e', respondent No'2 have marital disputes which have cuhninated in filing ol D.\'.('.No. l9 of 2012 on the fite ol'll Additional Junior civil Judge-cum-lll",dditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Rangareddy District at Rajendra Nagar ('DVC Court,), M.C.No.]77 ol.]0]l on tlrc tl[e of Additicrrral Fanlily Court, Rangareddyl)istrictatl-.B.NagalandF.C.o.P.No.756trf202lonthefllc of the Additional Family Court, Rangareddy Distr ct at L B'Nagar' Revision Petitioncrs have sought lor interim tnaintenance in Cr1.M.P.No.759 ol 2021 in I) V.C.No. 19 of 2O2l ancl the same was allowed virlc ordcr dated l4.l 1.2024 by awarding interinr maintenance of . RY.J crU.RC 446 2025 Rs. I 1,000/- per rnonth to all the revision petitioners along with arrears. Challenging the same, Crl.M.P.No. I 2l of 2024 was filed in Criminal Appeal No.2l8 of 2024 to suspend the operation ofthe said interim order. The appellate Court vide impugned order dated 16.01.2025 considering the fact that revision petitioner No. I is working as teacher and eaming net income of Rs.73,030/- per month has suspended the operation of the said order dated 14.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.759 of 2022 in D.V.C.No. l9 of 202lpending disposal of the main appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed by the revision petitioners.

4. [n the grounds of revision, it is alleged that the appellate Court committed error in allowing the Crl.M.P.No. 121 of 2024 without issuing notice to the revision petitioners, though, there was no urgency solely on the basis of oral submissions made by respondent No.2. The revision petitioners objected to the suspension of the order of interim maintenance which was passed without assigning any special reasons. It is emphasized that the order of granting interim maintenance was passed by the DVC Court after three years of hling of DVC in the year 2021 . There is suppression o['non-payment of arrears in the interim maintenance granted by the Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at I-.B.Nagar, M.C.No.277 of 2021 . As per the said order, the minors are entitled to 2 t RY.J CRLRC 446 2025 maintenance titl they attain majority and revision petitioner No.2 attained majonty on 30.0t.2023. revlsron petitioner No.3 t:n 06.01.2024 and revision petitioner No.4 on 21 .07.202.5. Hence, the a;:,pellate Courl ened believing the oral submissions of respondent No.2 that amears have been paid when the an'ears amount of Rs.5,54,074l- are still pcndirrg in the said maintenance case. More particularly, the revision petitioners have taken objection on passing of adverse orders without issuancr: of notice to them Hence, prayed to set aside the in'rpugned order.

5. During arguments, Iearrred counseI tbr the rc'r'ision petitioners emphasized that respondcnt No.2, is working a:; Additional Public Prosecutor and he is using Court process to deprive.the revision petitioners of their rights under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and other statutes. It is argued that though interirn maintenance was granted no amounts were paid till date and there are huge arrears pcnding

6. While so, leamed counsel lor respondent No.2 argtred that as per the statute maintenance is to be paid only up to attainmenl of rnaj ority by the mlnors. Revision petitioner No. I is a Government entployee eaming net income of Rs.73,030/- per month and thcrefbre, there is no need for grant of interim maintenance. As relief is to be granted only 1o those who are not capable of maintaining themselves i.e., wife or minc r children or aged 3 IIY,J cRr_RC 446 2025 parents, who are not capable of maintaining themselves, slnce revlsron petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have attained majority and since revision petitioner No. I is financially independent, it is contended that the order passed by the appellate Court is appropriate and does not need any interference by this Cou11. Findinss of the Court:

7. 'l'he record bears testimony that there have been matrimonial disputes leading to fiting ol DVC case, M.C. and FCOp between the parties. [t is also adrnitted fact that both revision petitioner No. I and respondent No.2 are having Government employment as teacher and public prosecutor respectively. Revision Petitioners in DVC No.19 of 2021 have sought interim maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month, in order to meet .maintenance and educational expenses of revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The said petition was considered on merits and total amount of Rs.l1.000/- per month only was granted i.e., Rs.3,000/- each to revision petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 and Rs.2,000/- to revision petitioner No.4. Irrespective of the fact that revision petitioner No. I is a Covernment teacher and has income of Rs.73,030/- per month, the f-act remains that revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were minors during the pendency of DVC. During pendency of such DVC, revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have attained majority. However, the 4 -,,/ I{Y.J CI{LRC 4,16 2025 fact also rernains that revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are students with no lncome At the age of 18, 19 and 20, the expenses of erlucation at colleges and universities rvould be high and therefore, there is tteed for supporl, in spite of the fact that they have attained the age of nrrjoritv. For that as parents, respondent No.2 and revision petitioner No I would have the obligation to suppoft the maintenance and education of the children. Though, respondent No.2 was earning an amount o1- 11s.1,13,033/- per month, the DVC Court has granted only Rs. I 1,000/- per month towards maintenance. 1-he appellate Court in the impugned orcler lras suspended the operation of the said order of granting interim tnaintenatrce without issuing notice to the revision petitioners herein. I'he singular reason assigned is that revision petitioner No.1 has income of Rs.73,0301- per month and she is also collecting rents from a duplex house coustrut:tcd by respondent No.2. While passing the impugned order, there is no r,onsideration of the fact that respondent No.2, is father and he is also resp,:rnsible towards his children i.e., revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Even in case, revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were majors and they are not entitled to grant of maintenance, the Court could have considered payment ol arrears when revision petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were minors. Instead ol't:onsidering the said fact, the appellate Court granted a blanket suspension without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners belore suspending the order dated 5 RY.J CRI,RC 446 2025 I4.ll.2OZ4 granting interitr maintenance in Crt.M.P.No.759 ol 2022 in D.V.C.No.19 of 2021.

8. [n view of fbrcgoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no urgency for the appellate Court to suspend the order dated 14.11 .2024 passed by the DVC Court in Crl.M'P'No'759 of 2022in D.V.C.No. l9 ol20ll, without aflording opportunity of hearing to the revision petitioners herein. Hence, the irnpugned order is liable to be set aside. g. In the result. the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the appellate Court in Crl.M.P.No.12l of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.2l8 of 2024 with a direction to pass the order atesh after hearing both the sides. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU DEP TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The lV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L B.Nagar 2. One CC to SRI JACOB tUUDl, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI L HARISH, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) $ Two CD CoPies ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 I ORDER CRLRC.No.446 ot 2025 I /'./ ,.) -) !, ,. 2 3 sEP ztffi "i' :'l liii' ' '' ALLOWING THE CRLRC WITHOUT COSTS ts W