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 direct the respondent to pay immediate a sum of Rs. 10,35,000/- towards interim maintenance includihg arrears forthwith by impose penalty for the default of payment of maintenance to the Petitioner as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. N Vinesh Raj Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : Sri D. Arun Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu The Court made the following: ORDER i I l ; I , I 4I t ! 1I: I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAT) THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.96O of 2Cl24 DATE: O1.!2.2O25. BETtrIEEN: Mr. Preetam powaku ... ..petitioner/ accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, TS High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others . Respondents/ complainant orrImt{ This criminal Revision case is fired chaflenging the order dated 24.02.2024 passed in crl.M.p.No.322 of 2022 in DVC'No' 16 of 2022 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad. 2 SKS'., Crl.R.C.IYo.9 60 of 2o24

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/wife had married the petitioner/husband on

27.O7.2OL7 and two daughters were born from the wedlock, but respondent No.2 alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence and was ultimately driven out of the house, which led her to seek interim maintenance of Rs.3,O0,OOO/- per month for herself and the two minor children. The petitioner admitted the marital relationship but denied all allegations of domestic violence, contended that respondent No.2 was capable of maintaining herself as she allegedly ran a consultancy, and further claimed that the petitioner had already been paying school fees, weekly expenses and other amounts for the children; he also asserted that his employment had ended due to the complaints of respondent No.2 and that he presently earned only Rs.2O,0O0/- as an independent consultant. Upon considering the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the absence of supporting material from both sides, the children's medical needs, the petitioner's previous high salary and his failure to disclose his true income, the trial court drew an adverse inference against him and held I € 3 SKS.J CrI.RC.!to.96O otZOi+ that although respondent No.2 was educated, her earning capacity arone did not disentitre her to maintenance, however, the amount claimed was fo,nd to be exorbitant. consequentry, the trial court partry alowed and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,00o/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.1O,0O0/- per month each to the two children towards interim maintenance from the date of the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision case.

3. Heard Sri N. Vinesh Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as welr as sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional pubric prosecutor appearing on beharf of respondent - State and sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 4' Learned counser for the petitioner had submitted that the appellate order was contrary to raw and the evidence on record, particurarly the petitionei,s Income Tax Return for 2023-24 showing an annual income of only Rs.3,3g,9 40/_, which made the award of Rs.3s,ooo/- per month whoily impracticable. He further submitted that the rower appelate {. 4 SKS.J Crt.RC.Ito.geO otZOi+ court failed to appreciate the limited income of the petitioner, his unemproyment caused by the respondent- wife's repeated complaints to his employers, and the . consequent disruption of his career and mentar wen_being. He contended that respondent No.2 had sabotaged the professionar prospects of the petitioner and could not now rely on his past earnings to claim higher maintenance and that the respondent had already been granted Rs.15,000/- per month in earrier proceedings, which the apperate court ignored, and that maintenance must be proportionate to the actual income of the husband. He further contended that the petitioner had even obtained an injunction restraining the respondent from defaming him professionally and submitted that the respondent, being welr-educated and previously employed, was capable of earning. Therefore, he prayed the court to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case. 5' on the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No'2 submitted that respondent No.2 had f,ed an application seeking interim maintenance for herserf and her two minor daughters, who required regurar medication and / f f 5 sKs,", Crl.R.C.!to.96O of 2o24 whose day-to-day expenses she was unable to meet due to complete financial neglect by the husband and that despite the Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.4O,0OOl- per month from the date of the application, the petitioner- husband had not paid even a single rupee and had wilfully violated the orders of the Court, resulting in alTears exceeding Rs.10,OO,O00/-. He further submitted that the husband continuously harassed the wife and children, abandoned them in 2019, threatened to shift the children to inferior schools under the false pretext of financial difficulty, and pressured the wife to sign documents sent through his friend to coerce her into a settlement so he could pursue an extramarital relationship. He contended that the children's schooling had suffered severely due to the husband's non- payment of fees, leading to suspension of online classes, inability to take exams, and repeated humiliation in borrowing books from classmates, while the wife, a homemaker for 13 years, was forced to borrow money for basic necessities. He further contended that the false claims of the petitioner-husband of financial hardship were contradicted by his conduct, including his strategized I i I 6 crl. R. c. !yo. e6o "rsif;;i partial pa5rment of school fees to mislead the Court, and that his continued neglect caused serious emotionar and educational trauma to the children. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the triar court and the triar court has rightly passed the impugned order, as such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6' In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counser and on a perusal of the material ava,abre on record, it appears that respondent No.2 had not preferred any appear or revision against the order passed by the trial court, and it is only the petitioner who carried the matter in appeal before the lower appellate Court and has now approached this court by way of revision. It is noticed that in the parallel proceedings, the Magistrate in M.C. had awarded maintenance of Rs.15,00 0/- permonth, whereas in the DVC proceedings the triar court had awarded an amount of Rs.4O,OOO/_ per month, which was modified by the appellate Court to Rs.3S,OOO/_ per month. The petitioner has specificaily contended that due to the conduct of respondent No.2, particurarry sending e-mails to his employer, he had lost multiple occasions, employment on / I \ \ 7 crl.R.c.no.e6o "irT;i which materially affected his earning capacity; and even respondent No- 2 had, admitted that such e-ma,s were sent. The Income Tax Returns praced on record arso disclose that the petitioner's current income is substantialry rower than what was presumed by the Courts below. 7 ' considering the facts and submissions of the case, this court is of the opinion that the quantum awarded by the apperlate court is exorbitant and disproportionate to the petitioner's estabrished income on record. Therefore, the finding of the triar court that the respondents are entitled to maintenance does not need to be changed. However, the amount granted needs to be revised so that it is fair to both parties and is an amount that the petitioner can realisticary pay' Accordingly, the amount payable to respondent No.2_ wife is reducea from Rs.15,O00 /_ toRs.10,000 /_ permonth in total' and the petitioner sha, continue to pay Rs.1o,o00/- each to the two minor children as directed by the triar court, payable from the date of the original petition before the trial court- Except for the above modification in the quantum of maintenance, the remaining findings and directions of the Courts below stand confirmed. I i I I l F i i I i I I I .1! 8 SKS,J CrI.R-C.tro.96O of 2O24 8 with the above modification, this criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,L SEcTf#;FFIcER / To,

1. The lv Mekoporitan Magistrate, (Traffic Mobire court), at Hyderabad 2. One CC to SrL N Vinesh Raj, Advocate [OpUC] 3. one cc to Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkaieshwirru, Advocate lopucl 4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL W / / I I : I i I : { 1 I I l I I I l HIGH COURT DAf ED:OI11212O25 I I o CRLRC.No.960 ol 2024 ( i.> 15BEC M * {,' i-.i:-i) CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISPOSED OF w \?