ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E v. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Venkanna Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Mukti Chander Rao. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.993 OF 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 2:.06.2024 in M.C.No.B9 of 2Ol9 passed by the learned Familv Court Cum - IV Additional District Judge at Khammam (for short, 'the trial Court'). By the impugned order, the trial Court ,lirected the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/ per month each to the respondent No.2 and his children and a:so directed to pay arrears of maintenance r'vithin two months.

2. Heard Sri P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the rev1s10n petitioner, Sri tr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State and Sri Mukti Chander Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitroner and respondent No.2 was solemnizecl on I5.O2.2O17 as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the u,edlock, they were blessed with a female child. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs. I 1,00,00O/ tor.l,ards dowry and goll ornaments etc. Apart from above, the father of EVV,J CRLRC 993 2024 respondent No.2 gifted a vacant site to an extent of 100 sq.yards and also house hold articles to the petitioner. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.2 led happy maritai life for a short span of time. Thereafter, it was stated that the petitioner started harassing respondent No.2 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. When she failed to bring additional dowry, he beat her indiscriminately and necked her out of matrimonial home and neglected to maintain his wife. Since, the respondent No.2 was unable to maintain herself; she filed the above maintenance case and the trial Court uide impugned order dated

21.06.2024 allowed M.C.No.89 of 2079. Assailing the same, the petitioner/husband has filed present Revision. l*, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the petitioner's salary as on the said date as Rs.35,O0O I - after statutory deductions. But the trial Court ordered to pay Rs. 15,O00/ each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, which cumulatively comes to Rs.3O,000/-; from out of net salary of Rs.39,O00/ being received by the petitioner. He further contended that respondent No.2 is having a own house bearing No.2O-9-58 uide assessment No. i 106033893, and getting a sum of Rs.2O,00O/- per month towards rents. Apart from that, she is having some other immovable properties and she is also *olkittg //// as a private employee and earning Rs.25,000/- per month and EVV,J CRLRC 993 2024 as such, she is; having sufficient sources of income to maintain herself. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. E. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ornprakash Gulabani Vs respondent in personl wherein it rvas held that the appellant is highly qualified and has earning capacity, but in fact, she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income, such person is not entitled lor maintenance. Pertinently, the claim for rnaintenance by the wife under the provisions Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same late and, accordingly, maintenance has been declined to her.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that the tria-l Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective only rightly passed the impugned order and hence, interference of this Court with such an order is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision. ' tg1rt.ett.1t .c.1 z+x :o ro l I l I EVV CRLRC 993 2024 $ Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rainesh Vs. Neha dnd dnother2, and contended that the trial Court ought to have given a fair opportunity to the petitioner/husband to furnish particula-rs of assets and liabilities owned by him However, the trial Court without considering the evidence on record in proper perspective, erroneously passed the impugned order.

9. This Court does not find any reason to modify the order passed by the learned trial Court. However, keeping in view the details of earnings furnished by the revision petitioner, it is noted that the petitioner is receiving a salary of Rs.44,826/- per month, while his account shows crediting of nearly an amount of Rs.70,000/- per month. Currently, he is getting a net salary of Rs.39,000/-. The trial Court, considering the bank statement showing crediting of a sum of Rs.7O,O00/- per month. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the maintenance granted by the learned trial Court in the said M.C. However, the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 13,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on or before loth of every succeeding month and shall deposit the arrears of maintenance, if any, before the trial Court within a period of two months. from , (2o2lP-supreme Court Cases 324 ; I l I I I EVV,J CRLRC 993 2024 today. In default, the trial Court shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. q*r. Expect the above modification, in all other aspects, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed //TRUECOPY/l Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR .l SECTION OFFICER To, The Judge, Family Court-cum- IV Additional Dis One CC to Sri f'.Venkarrna, Advocate [OpUcl One CC to Sri Nlukti Chander Rao, Advoca te [oPUC] One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings., Hyderabad.[OpUC] Two CD Copies t Judge at Khammam. 1 2 3 4 5 ]CK/PSL HIGH COURT I DATE,D:08/07/2025 ORDI]R CRLRC.No.993 of 2024 3IHE S 14 O( 16 JUL 02 25 oAT-t.' r-o o 1' + Criminal revision is dismissed except the modification 7 ,/t? '/) 5