The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'petition, the High court mav be pleased to quash the order passed in crr.R.p No.15 zo)a Jt.oi'os.zo)s'""'ti.,'. file of Principal Sessions Judge, Vikarabad District confirming tt" oro"r-pIr..i in crl.M P.No.103 ot 2023 in DV.c No.2 1 of 2023, dt.zsod2oz4 on tire-rire ot Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tandur, Vikarabad Di.tri"t. "t l.A. NO: 1 OF 2o25 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar'pelition, the Hign court ;;y re further proceedin-gs incruding the execution of tlhe order passed pl":r.".d. !o -sJay -a! in crr.M.P.No.103 0t 2023 in D.v.c.tto.zt otnozg, dr.25.0g.2024 0n the fire of Judicial First class Magistrate, Tandur, Vikarabad District, pending disposar oflhe above criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Petition and upon riearing the arguments of sri. c. HAR| PREETH' Advocate for the petitioner and tnJ sri Jithender Rao veeramaila, Additional Public Prosecutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No_2. The Court made the following ORDER: 1 I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUST]CE TIRUMALA DE|I EADA CRIMINAL P ETITION No .10180 0F 20:2 ; ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed by the petitiorr r seeking to quash the order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Crl ll.p.No.15 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2023 in DVC No.21 of 2023 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vikarabad Dist-i :t (for short "Sessions Court"), confirming the order dated 2l .0g.2024 in Crl M.P.No.'103 o,f 2OZ3 in DVC No.21 of 2023 by tr Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial tVragistrate of First crass, Tandur rf Vikarabad District (for short 'the trial Court'). 2 The parties herein are referred to as they wer I arrayed in the maintenance case before the trial Court for I te sake of convenience and clarity 3 The case of the petitioner before the trial Cour is that the petitioner has instituted DVC No.21 ot 2023 under Si{ the Protection of Women from Domestic Violenct: ction 1 2 of Act, 2005 seeking various reliefs and that she has filed ar seeking grant of interim maintenance @ Rs..15,000r_ against the husband, lt is alleged by the petitioner therl application per month at the time .-Ya ) I l of marriage their parents have given Rs.4 Lakhs cash, 12 tulas of gold, Rs.1 lakh for bike and other house hold articles as dowry and that after marriage her husband and the other family members started harassing for additional dowry and five tulas of gold. The husband is working as a Government teacher earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- per month and is having Ac.06_00 guntas of land, wherein red gram and cotton crops are grown and that they fetch an annual income of Rs.S Lakhs and therefore. she prayed for interim maintenance of Rs.15000/_ per month.

4. The husband has filed counter denying the allegations pertaining to dowry and other aspects of harassment. lt is further averred that wife has intentionally left his conjugat society and that he has filed HMOp No.g7 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and that divorce is granted on 09.10.2023 by dissolving the marriage and that there is no relationship between them as husband and wife and that the wife is earning Rs.50,000/_ per month as a tailor and is also working as a private teacher and he further averred that her parents have Ac.10_00 guntas of land and that she is not entifled for maintenance. 7 I 3

5. After hearing both the sides, the trial Courl tas granted a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Against v/ tich a revision was preferred before the sessions court, wherei. the revisional Court has confirmed the order of the trial Court. F.1 ainst the said dismissal order in the revision petition, the present luash petition is filed.

6. Heard the submissions of Sri C.Hari preeth, Ie; rrned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veerarr alla, learned Additional Public prosecutor for respondent No.1 _ Sil rte. 7 ' The learned petitioner counser submits therr the wife is working as a private teacher and also does tailoring work and is earning more than Rs.SO,OOO/_ per month and thel her parents have also enough financial resources and agricull "rral land of Ac.10-00 guntas of land and thus, she is not err ifled to any maintenance from the petitioner and that there is no I usband and wife relationship between the parties as it was arre, ry dissorved on 09.'10.2023, therefore, he prayed to quash the orcr r passed by the trial court granting interim maintenance of Rs.1r) 000r which was confirmed by the revisional Court. Hence, prayeri to set aside \a -,-- 4 the orders passed by the Sessions Court as well as the orders passed by the trial Court.

8. Perused the record

9. The petition discloses that the petitioner-husband is a Government teacher. Though he alleges that divorce has been granted, no document is filed by the petitioner to show that he was already granted divorce. The petitioner alleges that his wife is working as a teacher, but no proof is filed to that effect before the trial Court

10. The averments of the petitioner before the trial Court shows that she is still arrayed as the wife of the petitioner herein and she has narrated the incidents of harassment and the assets and income of the husband. During the pendency of DVC No.21 of 2023, this is an interim order passed in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 2023, granting Rs.10,0001

11. ln Ralnesh v. Nehal , the Apex Court held that the wife and children are to be maintained on par with the standards in which the husband is living. ' (202t) 2 scc a24 5

12. ln view of the principles laid down in Rajnes,l's case, it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wif : and son and he cannot simply neglect them on the pretext thal he is having meager earnrngs

13. The avocation of the petitioner shows the star iard of living of the petitioner and the wife needs to be maintainerl on the same standards, for which a minimum amount of m a ntenance is required. Though she is staying with her parents, he petitioner cannot take a plea that she can be taken care of tr, the parents and ignore his responsibility.

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of he case, an amount of Rs.'10,000/- per month towards interim naintenance which was granted by the trial Court and conf,r ned by the Sessions Court, is found to be well reasoned order it rd this Court does not find any merits in this petition to set aside th r said orders and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed

15. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed 6 Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER i To, 1 . The Principal Sessions Judge, Vikarabad District. 2. One CC to Sri C. HAR| PREETH, Advocate [OPUC]. -court 3. Two ccs to PUBLTG PROSECUTOR, High at Hyderabad [OUT].

4. Two CD Copies for the state of rerangana TTS/GR I I I HIGH COURT I DATED: 22t08t2025 ORDER l'l' CRLP.No.1018O ol 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED r\