The High Court · 2025

2. Smt. Shobha Rani,, Wo. U.S. Venkat Ram, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H82G, Miyapur, DK Enclave, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500049. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in ttre Mernoranftm of Grounds of Criminat Petitlon, the High Court rnay be pleased to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance ordered from 15, 000 per month to 8,000 per month the orders dated 04.12.2024 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 191 of 2022 in M.C. No. 36 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, R.R. District at Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 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 suspend the operation of the order Crl. M.P. No. 191 ol 2O22 in M.C. 36 ot 2022 dated 04.12.2024 before the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, R.R District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the Crl.P. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. Nalacheru Aishwarya, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Respondent No.1 / State. and no representation for Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER: / / THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA cRIMINAL PETITI ON No.l080 1 ot 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance ordered wde order dated

04.'12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.,t91 of 2022 in MC No.36 of 2022 by the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.8,000/-.

2. Heard Ms. N. Aishwarya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice sent to the respondent No.2 was returned with an endorsement that no such person is in the address and the address given is very much the same as given in the Maintenance Case. Hence, it is deemed to be served.

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

5. Learned counsel for the respondent_husband has submitted that petitioner-wife has reft the company of her husband on her own and has been residing separately and claiming \ t\ I I I I i I 2 EfO,J crlP. ,lo,'auol d 20a maintenance from the respondent-husband and that the trial court has granted huge amount towards monthly maintenance and the petitioner-wife alleges that due to the harassment made by the petitioner, she left the company of the respondent-husband. No criminal complaint is lodged against the respondent-husband so far. Leamed ounsel further alleged that there is no truth in the averments made by the petitioner-wife and that the trial court ought not to have granted the amount of Rs.15,000/- towards interim maintenance and he, therefore prayed to reduce the amount awarded by the trial court.

6. Perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that M.C. No.36 of 2022 was filed by one Shobha Rani against her husband U.S. Venkat Ram. Admiftedly, both the parties are legally wedded couple and due to marital disputes both of them are residing separately. The contentioh of the petitioner before the trial court is that the salary of the respondent-husband is around Rs.2,00,000/- per month as he works as a Bank Manager and that the petitioner-wife is suffering a lot and has been burdened with the responsibility of rearing her daughter. lt is further submitted by the petitioner-wife that their daughter is grown up and is working, but the petitioner has to J efD,J Ctl?. N4roeln d tu25 depend on her daughter for every necessity, which is not just and proper and that she is facing much hardship in life and is not able to maintain herself without any net earnings. The respondent-husband has contended before the trial court that his earnings are only to the extent of Rs.76,000/- to 78,000/- per month and that he is paying loan amounts approximately to an extent of Rs.70,000/- per month and that the petitioner-wife is working and has falsely made the allegations against the respondent-husband. It is further contended that the petitioner-wife has left the society of the husband on her own volition. lt is also contended that their daughter has grown up and is eaming a handsome salary. Thus, the petitioner-wife does not need any amount towards maintenance.

8. From the above submissions made by the respondent- husband, it is made to understand that his net salary is around Rs.78,000/- and when he is paying the toan amounts to an extent of Rs.70,000/- towards EMl, that his salary would be around Rs.1,50,000/-. The contention of the petitioner-wife is that the petitioner is earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The actual amount of eamings by the respondent-husband would be proved only after a full-fledged trial. The respondenGhusband himself admits to be a Bank Manager in Scale-ll grade. When the wife is living separately I I 4 EID,J C.l?. NqlO@1 ol tu25 from him, it is his bounden duty to maintain her on the similar standards of his own living. Though the respondent contends that their daughter is earning and that the petitioner need not claim any amount, the said contention cannot be sustained as a ground to decline maintenance to the wife. Another contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has her own earnings, but no proof is filed by him to that extent. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that the trial court has passed a very reasoned order granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife, which appears to be well justified, to meet the cost of living. Hence, the order of the trial court needs no interference.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the orderdated04.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.191 ot2022inMC No.36 of 2O22 by the Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPYII L.VIJAYA LAXUI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,,l lfRrY'"t*iflonal District and sessions Judge cum Famiry courr, R.R Disrricr

2. One CC to Ms.Nalacheru Aishwarya, Advocate {OpUCl 3. One CC to the public prosecutor, H(;h Court for the State of Tetangana, Hyderabad [OUT] An- HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 \ t TAS t og JrN?t2B t t 'z-(-) t ORDER CRLP.No.10801 of 2025 DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL PETITION d