The High Court · 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 all further proceedings in in Crl. M.P. 649 of 2024in M.C. No. 59 OF 2023 filed before Hon'ble Family Court Judge at Kukatpally Counselfor the Petitioner: Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi Counsel for the Respondent: : : i a CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9083 OF 2025 Between: Ashish Ojha, S/o Ram Kumar Ojha, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o 8-608, Golden Sands CHS Ltd., Plot No. 44, Gorai 2, Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400091. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The state of relangana, Rep by its Public P"rosecutor, High court of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT

2. Delisha (Minor),, D/o Ashish ojha, Under the guardianship of her mother Nisha. Ojha, .Wg Ashish__Ojh_a, R/o Divine Homes, Fiiends Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad - 500050 ^ojha ... RESPON DE NT/CO M P LAI NANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in crl.M.P. No. 649 of 2024 dated 1811212024 passed in M.C. No. 59 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in M.c. No. 59 of 2023 by suspending the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.p. No. 649 of 2024 in M.C. No. 59 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the main case. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Delisha ojha D/o Ashish ojha, Aged about 08 years (Minor), occ. Student, is minor.&.,amg; under th.e guardianship_of theirhatural motlier Nisha Ojha'@ kaw wo Ashish ojnaf _R/o G-401, Divine Homes, Friends iolorfl Chandanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-SO0050, phone: g73054gg0g ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

2. Ashish Private Borivali Ojha, S/o Ram Kumar Ojha, Aged about 4_0 years_, Occ- lce-President, Ehployee, R/o 8-608, Golden Sands CHS Ltd., Plot No. 44, Gorai 2, (W), Mumbai - 400091. Mob: 9769306886. ... RESPON DENT/PETITION ER Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased the reasons stated that the accompanying Affidavit, lt is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be please to vacate the Orders passed in l. A. No. 1 of 2025 in C.R.L.P. No. 9083 of 2025 dated 24.07.2025, pending on the file of this Hon'ble Court and dismiss the Criminal Petition as devoid of merits by awarding exemplary cost in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sunkara Kalyan Dileep, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri Jithender Rao Veeramallu, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA REVISION CRIMINAL PETITIO N No. 9083 ot 2O25 COMMON ORDER: Since both the matters arising out of the same order, both the petitions are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Crl.R.C. No.6B1 of 2025 is filed by the minor daughter of the respondent, represented by her natural mother, who is none other than the wife of the respondent, seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, Family court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally vide order dated 18.12.2024 in Crl.t\4.P.No.649 of 2024 in MC No.59 of 2023.

3. Crl.P.No.90B3 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner-husband seeking to quash the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in crl.tt/.P.No.649 of 2024 in MC No.59 of 2023 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience. \ \ 2 ETD,J Ctl.R.C.681 of 2025 & Crl.p. No.gag3 of 2O2S

5. The petitioner has claimed interim maintenance of 2,68,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- towards titigation expenses in the interim maintenance application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the child is born in United Kingdom and is being brought up by her mother and they are residing at chandanagar. The respondent is earning a sum of Rs.5,20,900/- per month and the chird has to be reared on par with the standards of living of her father for which she has to be maintained well and should get educated in a good school. The cost of living in these days is at an exorbitant level and then the child had to be shifted to a lesser expensive schoot to meet the expenses and that the mother is unable to meet the expenses of the child. when the respondent failed to support the maintenance of the child, the mother is facing a lot of troubles for bringing up the child. Therefore, the interim maintenance application was filed by the child seeking maintenance of Rs.2,68,000/- per month, but the triar court has granted only Rs.25,000/- per month which is very low and it will not help the mother of the petitioner in any way in bringing up the child and that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is required for the maintggance of the child. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the interim maintenance amount. ,.' !i t i 3 EfD,J Crt.R.C.6a, o, 2025 a Crt.P- No.9083 ol zurs

7. Learned counsel for the respondent (petitioner in Crl.p. No.9083 o'f 2025) has submitted that the respondent is facing a lot of problems in life though he is working as a Vice President in a Private firm, and that he has to support his brother, who is a cancer patient and he has to take care of his both parents. The said expenses are to a tune of Rs.2,97,000/- and thus, he is left with the remaining amount, out of which he has to maintain himself. He further submitted that the respondent is ready to provide maintenance to his daughter and that no proof of expenditure is filed by the petitioner and that the claim of the petitioner is exorbitant and the trial court has granted a huge amount of Rs.25,0001, towards interim maintenance which should be reduced and therefore, he prayed to set aside the order of the trial court and to reduce the interim maintenance amount.

8. Perused the record

9. lt is revealed from the record that the wife is also working. The contention of the petitioner-husband is that since she is working and she took the responsibility of bringing up the child, such a huge amount is not necessary to be awarded. He further submitted that the respondent is ready to bear the expenses of the child, but not to such an extent. The contention of the wife is that since both are \\ 4 ETD,J Cil.R.C.681 of 2025 & Crl.P. No.9083 ot 2025 equally responsible for bringing up their only child, the expenses for bringing up the child are at its peak, therefore, she is claiming Rs.1 ,50,000/- per month for the sake of the child

10. Considering the submissions of both the parties, it is understood that both the parents are well educated and are earning They have not filed their assets and liabilities statement so far before the trial court. Unless the same is assessed and analyzed, the trial court cannot work out the proper amount to be awarded towards maintenance. However, the main case filed for maintenance is still pending before the trial court. lt is only an interim application that is disposed of, against which the present petitions are filed. Even if wife is working, the husband cannot deny the responsibility of their daughter, and the petitioner in Crl.P. No.681 of 2025 is none other than the child of the respondent. The respondent has fairly conceded that he is ready to take up the responsibility of their daughter and ready to pay the maintenance, but he prayed to reduce the amount stating that he has some responsibilities. Though the earnings of the respondent is Rs.5,20,900/- per month, he stated that his net pay is Rs.3,80,000/-. The child also needs to be maintained on par with the standard of living of the father. Though, he has submitted with regard to his responsibilities, bringing up the child is also his .t I a I i ! II ) ETO,J Ctl.R.C.681 ot 2025 & Cil.P. No.9O83 ol 2025 responsibility. Therefore, in view of the present day living expenses and the status to which both the parents belong, it is opined that Rs.25,000/- per month is justified and therefore, it need not be enhanced or reduced. After hearing both the parties and after examining the evidence on record, the trial court may dispose of the main case on its own merits, but at present in the interim application, the trial court has passed a reasoned order by awarding Rs.25,o0o/- per month towards interim maintenance of the child (petitioner in crl.P. No.6B1 of 2025). Hence, the order of the trial court is upheld.

11. ln the result, both the Criminal Revision Case and the criminal Petition are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/. N. SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Judge, Family Court at Kukatpally. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

3. One CC to SriAvadesh Narayan Sanghi, Advocate TOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri Sunkara Kalyan Dileep, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VTYPR )tu HIGH COURT DATED i1311112025 t t COMMON ORDER CRLRC.No.681 of 2025 AND CRLP.No.9083 of 2025 I () ( -; 'tHE S Te 0 8 iAtl ?til,r (..; .? '-2 .l)r. .,:, ,:,,1.ir.:. ,. DISMISSING BOTH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AND CRIMINAL PETITION I 1 1 i e Ei I \v \0