The High Court · 2025

AND 1. Smt. Marthala Hepsibah, Wo. Marthala Shiva Reddy Age. 29 years, Occ. Housewife,

2. Anish Marthana, S/o. Marathala Shiva Reddy Age. 13 years, Occ. Student 3. Edwina Marthala, D/o. Marthala Shiva Reddy Age. 11 years, Occ. Student Petitioner No. 2 and 3 being minors rep. by their natural guardian/mother Smt. Marthala Hepsibah i.e Petitioner No. 1. All are Residents of H. No. 14-1- 160/3, Tulasi Nagarrn Near Pochamma temple, Allaput, Borabanda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad- 50001 B.

4. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS 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 modify the orders passed by the Court of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge -Cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri at Kukatpally in Crl.M.P. No. 27 of 2024 in MC No. 98 of 2022 dated 2810412025 by reducing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 30,0O0/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month put together to all the Respondents henceforth. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders dated 281O412025 on the file of the Court of the lll Additional District & Sessions Judge -Cum- ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kukatpally pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing fl- 3 Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumentsr rf Sri Gogi Varsha, Advocate for the Petitioner, Ms. Taneti Rani, Advocate for tlt Respondents 1 to 3 and sri Jithender Rao veeramalla, Additional public prose; rtor, High court for the state of relangana, Hyderabad on behalf of the Responde rt No.4 / state. The Court made the following: ORDER: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.11421 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to modify the order, dated 28.04.2025, passed in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2024 in M.C.No.98 of 2022 by the learned lll Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, whereby, the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking interim maintenane' was partly allowed awarding interim maintenance of Rs 10,0001 per month to each of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Heard Ms. G. Varsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Taneti Rani, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4-State

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has granted huge amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.'10,0001 per month to each of respondent Nos.1 to 3' She further submitted that the petitioner herein is a Pastor, who does honorary work and has no earnings at all. Thus, he is facing 2 difficulty in paying the amount. She, therefore aside the impugned order, dated 2g.04.2025. I]TD.J , rl.P No t t12l of202-i prayed to set 4 Learned counser for respondent Nos.1 to 3 ;ubmitted that respondent No.1 has the custody of two children ar d she is not a working woman and has no earnings of her own. [j te has to take care of the children and her own self, for which she reeds amount for sustenance and that the trial Court has right / granted an amount of Rs.10,000/_ per month to each of respo.r Jent Nos.1 to 3. She, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal p,: ition. 5 Learned Additional public prosecutor subnr tted to pass appropriate orders in the Criminal petition

6. Perused the record. 7 The parties hereinafter are referred to as they vere arrayed before the trial Court. B The petitioners before the trial Court are t re wife and children of the respondent. Admittedly, there are mit ital disputes between petitioner No.1 and the respondent, due 1( which they are residing separately. an interim maintenance application, which was decided by th: trial Court The present application : :---- -2, -t' / ) a'l D,J Crl.P.No. I l42l of 2025 The interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month was prayed by the petitioners. The respondent is alleged to be working as a Pastor. The said fact is admitted by the respondent, but he says that he works voluntarily with the church and that his amenities are taken care by the church members and thus, he does not have any earnings of his own. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleges that the respondent runs three churches and is a private employee and thus, earns around Rs-70,0001 per month' Though the assets and liabilities statements are filed before the trial Court, they are not of rnuch help to decide the petition, as not many details are disclosed in the said statements Petitioner No.1 has stated that the monthly expenses are around Rs.40,000/-, including house rent and maintenance of herself and two children. The respondent-husband shows bank balance of Rs.5,232l- and states that he does not have any earnings at all' I which is not believable. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioners are living separately from the respondent, some amount is required for their maintenance' Therefore, as an interim measure, the trial Court has granted Rs.10,000/- per month to each of the petitioners amounting to Rs.30,0001 per month. This Court opines that the said amount is 4 EII).J rl.P.No. t I42 t ot2025 justified in today's worrd. Though the respondent ras stated that he does not have any earnings of his own, ; tnsidering his earning capacity, the said amount appears to be n-. rsonable. lt is not the case of the respondent that petitioner No 1 s working and earning enough. No material is placed on recor( to show that petitioner No..l is working or earning something. \4 hen she does not have any earnings of her own, she requires s,l ne amount to maintain herself and the two children, who are ;chool going. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, he amount of maintenance granted by the trial Court appear, to be well justified. Hence, it is opined that the Criminal petitir) I lacks merit. I Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismisse,l Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall s iand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. I .C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSI,;[TANT REG]STRAR \,\. \. i \ SE\TIoN oFFICER To, ,' *s J [ #i,l't"J::' qnf":i:j3l]i;.upgf"fx,[:, Ad r r io n a r M etro po r ita n ^B:[f"', 2. One CC to Sri. Gogi Varsha, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Ms. Taneti Rani, Advocate tOpUCl o lyr""?""#o'?3nX'0"" Prosecutor, High court for the Stzr, : of rerangana,

5. Two CD Copies. PSK /Sa HIGH COURT DATED:2111112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11421 ot 2O25 SI ,.J t_) 3 I * .')|.. o {. , DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION