High Court · 2025

.RESPONDENT/DEFACTO. COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of CRPC RA/V 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash orders passed by the Judge I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, in Crl. M.P. No. 291 0f 2024, in M.C. No. 46 0f 2024, Dt. 07-03-2025, on the file of Honble Judge I Addl. Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, and consequently dismiss the said Crl. M.P. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the Judge I Addl. Family Court cum XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, in Crl. M.P. No. 291 ot 2024, in M.C. No. 46 of 2024, Dt. 07-03-2025, on the file of Honble Judge I Addl. Family Court cum XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad, This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and the SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and of None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2 The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA GRIMINAL PETITON No.l1499 of 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent to quash the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.291 of 2)24in M.C No.46 of 2024 by the lAdditional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder the trial court has granted maintenance of Rs.20,0001 per month.

2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Aganrual, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State

3. Though notice is served on the respondent No.2, she failed to represent the matter.

4. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that the petitioner is a Rapido driver and is earning very meager amount and thus, he cannot pay the maintenance awarded by the trial court at Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife. He further submitted that the trial court has committed an error in the I i '1 2 ETD,J Cd.P. No.11499 of 2O2S result portion i.e. paragraph No.10 of its order observing that ,,the petitioner is entifled Rs.10,0001- per month to each to their needs,,, when there is only one petitioner claiming maintenance. tn the resutt portion, it has held that "petition is parfly.. ailowed by grating Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner". Thus, learned counset for the petitioner has argued that if the said amount of Rs.20,000/_ per month is reduced to Rs.1o,o0o/- per month, the petitioner can as well pay the same.

6. Perused the record.

7. M.c. No.46 of 2024 was fired by the petitio.ner-wife seeking an amount of Rs.50,000A per month towards her monthry maintenance and she filed crl.M.p. No.2g1 of 2024 for grant of interim maintenance at Rs.40,000/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent are living separately by virtue of divorce certificate dated 09.0g.2023 issued by the Darur eazath Amarath Millath lslamia, Telangana and A.p. Thus, both of them are living separately and some amount is required for the maintenance of the wife, who is the petitioner before the trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that though the petitioner has teft the society of the respondent on her own vorition, the respondent is ready to pay the maintenance to her. He further

1. \ \ 3 EfD,J Crl.P. No.l1199 of 2025 has submitted that the petitioner never used to do any household work and was never interested in continuing the family life with the respondent, while the case of the petitioner is that she was put to continuous torture and harassment ever since the time of her marriage and that she has also filed a dowry harassment case against the respondent and his family members vide crime No.9 of

2024. she as further alleged that the respondent and his family members used to pick Lrp quarrel with her by demanding to bring additional dowry and finally driven her out from the matrimonial house retaining all her gold jewellery and jahej articles and educational certificates.

8. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is well educated doing business in the name and style of MIITS Constructions and Realtors, which deals with construction and real estate business and thus, he earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month. lt is further contended that the respondent owns a house at Diamond Hills colony and other properties at shaikpet, Hyderabad, and that the said house is fetching rent of Rs.30,000/- per month and he has no other responsibilities. lt is her case that she has no earnings of her own and is depending on her parents at present and requires amount for her maintenance. The rii'" 4 ETD,J Cil.P. No.11199 ol 2025 contention of the respondent is that he is working as a Rapido two wheeler driver and is getting very less income and is unable to maintain himself. Though he contends that the petitioner has the capacity to work, it is not his case that the petitioner is working and earning something. The truth in the allegations and the factual position with regard to the earnings of either of the parties can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. But, since this is an interim maintenance application, considering the age of the parties that the respondent husband is aged about 35 years and is into business, an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month appears to be justified to help the petitioner in her day to day living. Though the counsel for the respondent contends that he is only a Rapido driver, considering his age and the ability of earning, it is opined that Rs.10,0001- per month would be a reasonable amount to be granted to the petitioner towards her maintenance.

9. The trial court has observed at paragraph No.10 that 'the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- per month to each to their needs'. Based on the said observation, in the result portion, the maintenance amount is awarded at Rs.2O,OOO/- per month. lt is pertinent to mention in this regard the there is oniy one petitioner on record. Thus, the said sentence appears to have been erratically mentioned. \ \ ,/ I i 5 ETD,J crt,P. No.11199 0t 2025 However, since it is only the petitioner-wife, who is claiming the maintenance, awarding Rs.10,0001 is opined to be justifled in this

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of modifying the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.291 of 2024 in M.C. No.46 of 2024 by the I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by reducing the maintenance award of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the trial court to Rs.10,0001- per month. The other directions in the order of the trial court are remained unaltered. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR d //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge I Additional Family Court cum XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad

2. One CC to SRl. PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at I Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Copies VM/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:2011112025 ORDER CRLP.No.11499 ot 2025 ( .)-) L) 'iHE SIa. 19 0Ec ilflt ,' i * p.lTc vrrr' * DISPOSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION