The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Chitikela Priyanka, Wo. Yelmakur Sai Uday Kiran, Aged 33 years, Occupation. Private Employee.

3. Yelmakur Sai Anwitha, D/o. Yelmakur Sai Uday Kiran, Aged 8 years, Occupation Student, Respondent No.3 is represented by her mother and natural guardian, Both are residents of Flat No. 103, Nandi Arcade, 5th Lane, Behind SR Nagar Traffic PS, Hyderabad - 38. ...Respondents/Petitioners Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S S. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order, dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 564 OF 2024, in Domestic Violence Case No. 282 OF 2023, on the file of the Court of the lll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 > Petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. praying that ir the c;ircumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition he High Court may be pleased to pass interim suspension of the Order, dated 0' 07 2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 564 OF 2024, in Donre stic Violence Case No. 282 OF 2023, on the file of lll Judicial Magistratr of First CIass,at Hyderabad, till the disposal of the above revision case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing t re lrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing t re arguments of Sri Saraswathi Mungi, Advocate for the Petitioner anc Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the flr sponclent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 and 3. The Court made the following: ORDER J ! THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10796 ot 2025 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.564 of 2024 in Domestic Violence Case No.2B2 of 2024 on the file of lll- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

2. Heard Ms.Mungi Saraswathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and lt/lr- Sama Sunil Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the respondenUhusband (petitioner herein) has submitted that the trial court has erred in awarding maintenance to the child to an extent of Rs.22'500/- and that the trial court has not considered the earnings of the petitioner No '1lwife (respondent No.2 hergin). He further submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a Software employee and thus, she is earning a handsome salary and also enjoying rents and therefore, the maintenance awarded to an extent of Rs.22,500/- to the petitioner No.2-minor daughter (respondent No.3 herein) is too high to be shared by him bn$ that the petitioner No.1 has ample resources to maintain the ) ETD,J Crl.P. Uo.10796 o12025 t- \ ----.1 minor daughter, whereas the respondent is earr ir g less than the pelitioner No. 1 and hence, the maintenance a r f unt has to be reduced accordingly

4. Learned counsel for the petili( )ner No.1_wife (respondent No.2 herein) has submitted that :he educational expenses of the child is too heavy in these days ;tr d that there are several other miscellaneous expenses and addili< nal expenditure has to be spent to make the child develop in all fi rlds. He further submitted that the triar court has considered the ass :ts and riabirities statements submitted by both the parties and h;rs passed a very reasoned order. He further submitted that the rent; alleged by the respondenthusband are obtained from the sthridr,rna of petitioner No.1-wife and that does not mean to say that he responden! husband can be absolved with the responsibility of sharing the expenses of child. He therefore, prayed to disrr.iss the present petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. For the sake of convenience, the partir:r are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial courl J ETD,J Crt.P. No.10796 of2025 I'

7. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent, while the petitioner No.2 is their daughter. Due to marital disputes both of them, they got separated and the minor daughter is now under the custody of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 has filed DVC No.2B2 of 2023 in which she has sought interim maintenance by filing Crl.tt4.P. No.564 of 2024 seeking an amount of Rs.80,000/- per month i.e. Rs.35,0001 to petitioner No.1 and Rs.45,000/- to petitioner No.2. After hearing both sides and after perusing the statement of assets and liabilities, the trial court has granted an amount of Rs.22,500/- to petitioner tto.Z anO dismissed the petition as against the petitioner No.1. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed by the respondent-husband seeking to set aside the said orders. B. Admittedly, both the petitioner No.1 and respondent are Software Engineers. The petitioner No.1-wife is a B.Tech. graduate and is working as Senior Alvisory Consultant at IBM with a monthly income of Rs.1 ,42,OOO!- and she has assets i.e. an extent 120 sq.yds., of open plot in Kalwakurthy and fixed deposits of Rs.3,00,0001. lt is her case that she has constructed a G+4 floors building on a plot of 150 sq. yds., gifted by her father, which yields rental income of Rs.77,000i- per month approximately and she 4 \:-.\ Crl-P. No-10796 of 2o2S ._ LTD.J claims monthly expenses of Rs.g5,000/_ ino ,rding Rs.15,000/- towards to her dependent parent and Rs.4S,000r_ lor the minor child. She also has liabilities amounting to Rs.50,00,00 )i_ and further it is her case that she is paying Ervr of Rs.54,000/_ per rnonth. The respondent-husband is a B.Tech. graduate work n 7 as [-ead Analyst in Netenrich with a monthly income of Rs.1,50 000/_ He further is paying house rent of Rs 1 1,SOO/_ and also paying EIVII of Rs.49,436/- towards personal loa I and Rs.5,3BB/_ towards vehicle loan. He also claims to I ave contributed Rs.70,00,000/- towards construction of the hou,;e in which the petitioner No.1 is presenfly residing On this point here rs a serious submitted that he contention between both the parties The petitione r No. 1_wife claims to have constructed the said building and is paying EMt of Rs.54,000/- per month while the respondent_husbrrrd also says that he paid Rs.70,00,000/_ and is paying EMI Rs.49 C )0/_ per month These rival contentions would attain finality after z ull-fledged trial However, in lhe present case, the interim mair.ll lnance that ordered to be paid by the respondent-husband is chi llenged. Since the coupre got separated, it is the bounden duty of b rth the parents to look after the welfare of the minor child. The petiirioner No.1 has good amount of earnings and hence, she need nct be paid any marntenance. However, for maintenance of the mirrr r girl child, an IS =-."--7 5 ETD,J Crl.P. No.10796 ol 2025 estimated amount was projected by the petitioner No.1 herself as Rs,45,000/-. Since both the parents have equal responsibility for bringing up their child, the trial court has fixed 50% responsibility on each of the parent and awarded an amount of Rs.22,500/- towards maintenance of the petitioner No.2 to be paid by the respondent- husband, which appears to be well justified. Therefore, the order of the trial court is based on iound reasoning and hence, do not need any interference by this Court. Thus; the petition lacks merit and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed lvliscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 The lll Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Hyderabad. One CC to Sri. Saraswathi Mungi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. /PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 > , lrtr .l i,{I t, ).t ii _: i.:i'1 , I \ L \: ORDER GRLP.No.10796 ot 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED. 7 / .'S ,// o/< /-,