High Court · 2025

Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment in Crl.4.83/2023 dated 2210712024 on the file of the I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad preferred against the Order in Crl MP 107312019 in DYC 197l2ol 8, Dated 0210812022 on the file of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Navari Srikanth Reddy, S/o Srinivas Reddy, aged 36 years, Occ Nil,

2. Navari Srinivas Reddy, S/o Bal Reddy, Aged 64 years Oc Retd Employee,

3. Navari Laxmi Kousalya, W/o Srinivas Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ Housewife, All are Rl/o 16-1-387, Reddy Basthi, Opp. Sri Ramulu Hospital, Saidabad, Hyderabad. AND '1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

2. J. Manasa, Wo Navari Srikath Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ Housewife, R:/o 'l -3-31 8, Compsary Bazar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad Petitioners/Appellants . Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 5'l cPc praying that in the cir cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to Stay the order in Crl.MP. 107312019 in DVC 1971208, dated 02-08-2022 on the file of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and pass For the Petitioners : Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, Advocate Forthe Respondent No.1 :The Public Prosecutor For the Respondent No.2 : Ms. Snitha for Ms. Volimineni Manogn.ya, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER L I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.gOA OF 2024 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed under Section 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS) by the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment dated

22.07.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional Family Court cum- XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the appellate Court') wherein the appeal was dismissed by confirming the order dated 02.08.2022, passed in Crl.M.P.No.iO73 ol 2O).9 in DVC No.197 of 2O18 by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad.

2. Heard Smt. SAV. Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri tr.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ respondent No.1 and Ms.Snitha, learned counsel representing Volimineni Manognya, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1 and their marriage was Page 2 ol5 performed on 23.O5.2O13 as per Hindu rites alrd customs and at the time of engagement parents ol respondt:nt No. 1 gave al amount of Rs.10,00,OOO/_ towards dowry as trer the demand of the petitioners and at the time of marriage they ,3ave an amount of Rs.5,0O,O0O/- towards dowry and also giver gold and silver articles and they also performed the marriaS:,e rvith petitioner No. 1 , for which the parents of respondent I,lo. 1 incurred an amount of Rs.20,00 ,OOO I _. After marriage, respondent No. I joined with the society of the petitioners. pe,.itioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 lived happily for a period of two months. Thereafter, the petitioners ill-treated respondent No.2 and started harassing her to bring additional dowry. Mearwhile, out of the wedlock, respondent No.2 delivered a baby bo,/ on 28.03.2014 ald the cost of delivery and treatment was met ry the parents of respondent No.1. Thereafter, petitioners have harassed respondent No.1 to bring additional dowry. Or 10.06.201g the petitioners abused respondent No.1 in fi1thy lang rage and necked out from the house. Therefore, respondent No.2 1iled DVC No. 197 of 2OI8 before the learned IV Metropolitan M rgistrate (Tra,ffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad. . Page 3 of5 4 . The learned trial Court vide order dated 02.08 .2022 rn Crl.M.P.No.1073 ol 2019 tn DVC No.l97 of 2018, granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/ per month to respondent No.2 on or before 5th of every succeeding month from the date of filing the application. Further, the petitioner No.l is directed to pay the arrears within three months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred an appeal vide CrI.A.No.83 of 2023

5. The learned appellate Court after re-appreciation of'material on record, dismissed the appeai by confirming the order passed by the learned tria,l Court. Assailing the said order, the petitioners preferred the present crimina,l revision case 6 . Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial and appellate Courts ought to have seen that the petitioner No.1 is an unemployee and respondent No.1 is earning means by working as a Teacher. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the trial Court, without adhering to the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and dnother, wherein a statement with regard to the assets ald liabilities of the parties is a mandatory requirement, erroneously Page 4 of5 l passed the impugned order. Therefore, he ,;eeks to allow this Revision.

7. Learned Assistant public prosecutor arrd learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the iearned trial and appellate Courts have rightly passed the impugr red orders after appreciation of materials on the record a,d -he interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss this CriminaJ Revision Case. , 8 O2.O3.2O22, awarded Having regard to the submissions made b,y both the parties discloiied that the trial and after considering the merits, it is Court while grarting maintenance on meager amount to the respondent No.2. It is n tt in dispute that the cost of living standards of the people have esr:alated to a larger extent from the date of the order till today. The:efore, this Court does not see any reason or merits with the reasored order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 9. However, keeping in view of the strong cor:tention that the petitioner No. 1 does not have any employment md income and the multiple criminal cases filed by the respondent No.2 herein. at this point of time, without making any observations, the maintenance passed by the learned trial Court in its order dated

02.O8.2O22 in Crl.M.P.No.1073 of 2Ol9 in DVC No.197 of 2018 is confirmed. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit the arrears accrued so far to the credit of DVC No.197 of 2Al8 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at the rate specified ln the above DVC within six months from the date of this order ald the trial Court is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law

10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of As a sequel, Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. oT //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD SSISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER Court, Hyderabad

1. The I Additional Family Court cum XIV Addition Metropolitan Sessions 2. fhe lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Ms. S.A.V. Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms. Volimineni Manognya, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies {y HIGH COURT DATED:221112O25 ORDER CRLRC.No.9OB of 2024 . 1HE- STa 14: (o o o t(t ,)/ i 11 JIJN 206 )csr.^Tc Crur4rNAL REVISION lS DISPOSED OF 6 \\