Syed Akram ul Hussain v. 1. State of Telangana

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 all further proceedings including the operation of the orders dt. 02-05-2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.30212023 in M.C.No.253/2023 on the file of I Additional Family Court, At Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main criminal petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing th() Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri KHALEEL AHMED KHAN ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri V.Jithenc:r rao Additionai Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and Sr 'labbeb al Hasmi Advocate for the Respondent N02. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10289 of 2 025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2025 passed in li/.P. No 302 of 2023 in tVC No.253 of 2025 by the l-Additional Famity Court cum XIV Additional tVetropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Mr. Khaleel Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Habeeb lmran Al Hashmi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

3. The parties are hereinafter referred as they arrayed before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that the petitioner-wife refused for consummation of marriage and never lived in a cordial relationship with the respondent and that she has left his company on her own volition and therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that the respondent is rea{ to accept the petitioner even as on date, but she is not willing to join him. Further, she has demanded huge amount as \ 2 EfO,J Crl.P. No.10239 ot 2025 maintenance and the trial court had committed an e -ror in grating interim maintenance of Rs.25,0001 per month. He fi r her submitted that the respondent cannot support the petitioner b'r giving such a huge amount of Rs.25,000/- as he has his own livingl expenses and responsibilities of his parents. He further submitted t rat though the respondent was an employee at Dubai, at present h: is not working and not earning anything and therefore, he is not at Le to bear the said expenses. He, therefore, prayed to set aside thr: rrders passed by the trial court

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has ;ubmitted that the submission of the respondent-husband that he s not earning anything is utterly false and that no documents are file I to show that he has left his job and further has not filed the assetr and liabilities statement so far before the trial court. He further sur nitted that the respondent is working in Dubai for many years an( was earning huge amounts and just to evade the payment of mair enance to the petitioner, he has come up with the false story and pre led to dismiss the petition and confirm the order passed by the trial court granting interim maintenance of Rs.25.0001 per month.

6. Perused the record 3 ETD,J Ctl P. No.102r9 ol 2025

7. Admittedly, both the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband and the wife is living away from her husband. Their marriage has taken place in the year 2022. The husband is shown to be a B.Com., Computer Graduate, working in the Finance Department of a reputed company as an Accountant at Dubai and is alleged to be earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month, apart from which he is having own prope(ies at Hyderabad earning rent of Rs.25,0001 per month and that his total earnings are around Rs.2,25,000/- per month and that he has no other responsibilities. The case of the petitroner is that she is unable to maintain herself as she is a household lady and is not able to earn anything. She further submitted that due to the harassment meted out by thb respondent, she had to leave his society and that the husband refused to maintain her to avoid his responsibility. B lt is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner did not allow for consummation of marriage and that he applied for the VISA of his wife, but she denied to travel to Dubai and requested for some more time. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that non-willingness of the petitioner itself shows that she has left the society of the respondent on her own and thus, the respondent need not maintain her any more. However, all these issues fall for \\7 4 EfD,J C P. No.10289 ol202s 'ir consideration during the course of trial and a log i ;al end can be arrived at only after a full-fledged trial. But for thr present, since both of them are Iiving separately and it is not ;hown that the petitioner-wife is earning something for her sustenir ce, it would be the responsibility of the respondent-husband to nri intain his wife. Though the learned counsel for the respondent ubmits that at present the respondent is not earning anything, no uch material is placed on record to show that he has left his job However, it is borne out by record that the respondent is not at t) rbai at present. Considering the earning capacity of the respondent rnd in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount granted I y the trial court at Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenan: : is upheld.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent elied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Megha Khet apal v. Rajat Kapoorl stating that if the wife is self sufficient anrl for living for herself, there is no necessity il is able to earn support her maintenance. However, in this case, it is not made , ,ut whether the wife is self sufficient and earning enough and there is no proof to show her avocation or income. Still the main cas() is ,pending for consideration as such some amount of maintenanc:r is required to 1<025 SCC OnLine Oet 1688 5 EfD,J Cn-P- No-102E9 of 2025 be provided to the petitioner-wife. Hence, the orders of the trial court are upheld

10. ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 02 052025 passed in tt/.P. No.302 of 2023 in ttilC No.253 o'f 2025 by the l-Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. IVliscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. GOWRI SHANKAR =-- TANT REGI //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge I Additional family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitian Session Judge at Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRI KHALEEL AHIMED KHAN Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CCto SRl. Habbeb al Hasmi Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderbad [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies AG/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:1911112025 ORDER CRLP.No.10289 ot 2025 lC '1 a\ C) n u . il. 2t?6 -k -f' ,. r1.jI :.J .lt * CRLP IS DISMISSEEI ,dA W