The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.I : MOHAMAD ABDUL QUAYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.6Z6 of 2C,23 ORDER: This criminar Revision case is filed challenging the order dated oz-o8.2o23 passed in M.c.No.53g of 2022 by the II Additional Family court-cum-XV Additionar Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2- The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section L2s cr.p.c. seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent. petitioner No. t stated that she married the respondent on 12.og-2ooz as per Islamic Law and soon after marriage, the respondent left for Jeddah, leaving her with his parents, who allegedly harassed her mentally. she further stated that the respondent neglected to provide love, care and l-rnancial support, took away her salary, addicted to alcohol and tobacco, and failed to take care of her during pregnancy. After returning to India in 2ol!, the respondent continued to neglect her and the children and even prevented her from entering the matrimoniar home in 2 . sKs,J Crl.R-C.I{o.676 of 2o23

2014. It was further alteged that the respondent had an extra-marital alfair and physically abused her, leading to separation. Petitioner No.1 claimed she earned only Rs.2O,OOO/- which was insufficient to maintain herself and the minor children. On the other hand, the respondent denied all allegations except marriage and paternity of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. He stated that the petitioner herself was quarrelsome, refused to stay with him and spent money tavishly. He claimed that he had taken care of the family, paid school fees and medical expenses, and was always willing to cohabit. He further contended that petitioner No.l was employed and earning sufficiently, whereas he was earning only Rs.4O,OOO/- per month and also burdened with loans. He asserted that he had already frled cases for restitution of conjugal rights and guardianship of the minors.

3. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that the parties had been living separately for long and the respondent neglected to provide maintenance. The trial Court observed that petitioner No.l failed to prove that she was currently unemployed and earning insufficiently. Considering the respondent's income and the educational needs of the // 3 SI(s,J Crl.R-C.Ifo.676 of 2ol23 children, the Court partly allowed the petition and awarded maintenance of Rs.lO,oOO/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, totatling Rs.2O,000 l- per month from the date of order. The claim of petitioner No.l for maintenance was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed.

4. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Mohammed Abdul Qaiyoum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. karned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

5. impugned order of the trial Court was contrary to law and liable to be set aside, as the Court erred in holding that petitioner No.l was a working woman and therefore not entitled to maintenance- He further submitted that the trial Court faited to consider that petitioner No.l had already left her job, which was clearly mentioned in her evidence aflidavit filed in 2}lg, and wrongly retied on the earlier dismissal of interim maintenance passed prior to the judgment of the 4 sl(s,J Crl.R.C.Ito.676 of 2ol23 Hon'lrle Supreme Court in Sneha us. Rajnesh. He further contended that the burden lay on the respondent to prove that petitioner No.1 was employed as on the date of judgment, and that even a working woman is entitled to maintenance in law and that the trial court ignored the petitioners'evidence and reached findings without proper judiciat reasoning, warranting interference by this court. Therefore, he prayed the court to set aside the order of the trial court by allowing this criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court rightly passed in the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed the court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners was that the trial court declined maintenance to petitioner No.l despite her specific evidence that she had left her employment. The record showed that though petitioner No.l \ 5 sKs,.J Crl.R-C.IIo.676 of 2ol23 initially stated she was earning Rs.2O,OOO l- per month at the time of filing in 2017, she clearly deposed in her chief affidavit that she had left the job in 2019. Once such assertion was made, the burden shifted to the respondent to establish that she continued to be employed as on the date of the judgment. Except relying on earlier affidavits showing her occupation as a private employee, the respondent did not produce any independent evidence to prove her present employment.

8. It was also noticed that the respondent was working in Dubai and earning around Rs.42,OOOl- per month. In view of the settled legal position laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha that even a working wife is entitled to maintenance if her income is insuflicient to maintain herself with dignity, and considering the needs of the petitioners and the financial capacity of the respondent, this Court found that petitioner No.1 was entitled to maintenance.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case was allowed in part, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.7,SOO/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to petitioner No.1 from the date of the order of the trial , I 6 sKsrr Cd.R-C.Ito.676 of 2ol23 Court. The maintenance awarded by the trial Court to petitioners 2 and 3, i.e., Rs.1O,0OO l- per month each, totaling Rs.20,0oo/-, stood confirmed. All other frndings of the trial Court remained undisturbed. Miscellaneous apptications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// DEPd9[T":SIhH G SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additione sessionsJ,r;s::*,,;:r#t,li8i,,S&,S,#%tg$:,,l"i.Xy.BgSporitan

2. One CC to SRt MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate tOpUCl 3' ONE CC tO SRI. MOHAMAD ABDUL QUAYAM, AdVOCAIE TOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies a ASR/PS HIGH COURT DATED i2711012025 ? { ORDER CRLRC.No.676 of 2023 3 o? JAN2o?6 * l-, * PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE CRLRC