The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1O7 4 of 2or24 ORDER: I{eard Sri. Chetluru Sreenivas, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. T.Ravinder Babu, learned counsel on behalf of Ms. C.Suneethamma, learned courisel appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3 as well as learned Assistant Purblic Prosecutor for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

2. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the impugrred order dated 08.08.2024 passed in M.C. No. 182 of 2O2O by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Scssions Court, t-Iyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), wherein, the trial Court partly allowed the M.C. b-v granting monthly maintenance amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- to respondent No. 2 herein and Rs.SO,OOO/- tr> respondent No.3 herein, who are children of revision pctitioner (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife). ) ) RY,J Crlrc_1O74_ 2024 2

3. Rgspondent No.1 is the wife of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the revision petitioner and respondent No.1. The revision petitioner and responctent No. I were married on 29.12.2OO2 at Yadagirigutta temple as per Hindu rites and customs and also registered their marriage before the sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri, safilguda, secunderabad. There were matrimonial disputes between the coupte leading to filing of M.c. No. 1g2 of 2O2O seeking maintenance. The said M.C. was partly allowed by the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs.3O,OOO/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.SO,OOO/- per month to respondent No.3 and no maintenance was granted to respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner.

4. In the grounds of the revision case, the revision petitioner pleaded that the trial court granted maintenance of Rs.3o,ooo / - per month to respondent No.2 until her marriage agd Rs.SO,OOO/- per month to respondent No.3 without taking financial capacity of the revision petitioner into RY,J Crlrc_1O74_ 2O24 3 consideration. No reasoning is given for arriving at the quantum of maintenance granted. Respondent Nos.l to 3 had sought monthly maintenance of Rs.45,ooo/- each, whereas, monthly maintenance of Rs.50,ooo/-was granted to respondent No.3 which is more than the maintenance prayed for. As per the guidelines of Rajnesh a. Neha and. anothert, the revision petitioner has furnished information to show that he is earning Rs.2o,oOo/- per month, whereas, respondent No.l did not file any proof to show that the petitioner is working with Dell software company and has income of Rs. 1,75,ooo / - per month. It is also pleaded that the maintenance granted is four times higher than the income of the petitioner. There is no consideration of the fact that the petitioner worked till 2o1s and respondent No.1 does not know whether he is doing any job and she is admitting that the petitioner is doing business. Further, it is pleaded that the capacity of the petitioner to pay the maintenance is not taken into consideration as per his living standards. The petitioner has an elderly mother and widowed sister living '1zozr; 2scc3z4 ) ) I?Y,J Crlrc-1O74- 2024 4 with him and he has responsibility to maintain both of them. It is also pleaded that the payment of maintenance to respondent No.2 is without consideration of the fact that under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., only minor daughter is entitled for payment of maintenance by the father. As per the legal ratio in Abhila,sha a. Parkash and others2, there is liberty to respondent Nos.l to 3 to approach under various provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), whereas, Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., does not contemplate granting of maintenance to unmarried major daughter. Therefore, maintenance amount awarded by the trial Court is illegal and as such, prayed to set aside the same.

5. The facts of the case in short are that the revision petitioner was an employee at Dell software company and earning Rs.1,75,OOO/- per month apart from being owner of certain immovable properties and having a share in the property of his parents. Respondent No.l is a reputed TV Artist having appeared in TV serials on daily basis and jtzozolArR sc 43ss) / RY,J Crlrc_1074_ 2024 5 honoured with Nandi award by the state Government and she also endorsed several products in advertisements. The petitioner submits that respondent No.1 being a reputed TV Artist has sufficient income about Rs.2,oo,ooo/- per montrr and therefore, she does not need maintenance and not entitled to be granted with maintenance as she is capable of maintaining herself. Further, the case of the revision petitioner is that respondent Nos.l to 3 are living in a flat purchased by him and therefore, there is no need to pay any amount of rent for accommodation of respondent Nos.1 to 3. coming to the case of respondent No.2, it is contended that she is already married and therefore, she does not need maintenance. with respect to the maintenance of respondent No.3 who is a special child with govo disability, it is submitted that as per the assets and liabilities statement submitted by respondent No.1, the care taker of the special child/respondent No.3 has to be paid Rs.1g,oo0/- and there may be medical expenses and that the bills which are one time cannot be included in monthly expenses such as nlBdical bills of respondent No.3 in the month of october and ) RY,J Crlrc-1O74- 2O24 /-- 6 December, 2023 and medical bills of respondent No.2 in the month of March and May, 2024. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is willing to pay for the expenses of the special child/respondent No.3 as a father who is under obligation to maintain his own child. Except maintenance of respondent No.3, the revision petitioner is not willing to pay any maintenance amount for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Per Contra, the case of respondent Nos.l to 3 is that

6. there are savings of the revision petitioner to a tune of Rs.3,25,0O,OOO/- apart from owning a flat, plots and share in the property of his parents. F'urther, according to respondent No.1, the revision petitioner is the owner of the Balaji garments showroom and also gets rents from the five storied building at Badi chaudi, Hyderabad. It is represented that though the revision petitioner is no longer an employee with Dell software company, he is doing business. According to respondent Nos.l to 3, the revision petitioner is capable of paying the maintenance as ordered by the trial Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. RY,J Crlrc_1O74_ 2024 7

7. A scrutiny of the rival contentions of both the parties shows that in a1l probability, neither of the parties is presenting a fair picture of their financial capabilities. On one hand, the revision petitioner is denying his income above Rs.2O,OOO/- but monthly expenses shown are above Rs.2O,OOO/- at a minimr*. R" per the information given by the revision petitioner, he has to meet expenses of his mother and widowed sister (Rs.1S,OOO/- per month to his mother, who is a diabetic patient and having neurogical problem, Rs.1O,OOO/- per month to his widowed sister, who is suffering from epilepsy problem) and EMI of Rs.16,806/- in addition to the vehicle expenses of' respondent No.3/special child. Therefore, in all probability, the income of the petitioner is higher than the income which is actually admitted. Any person who is earning only Rs.2O,OOO/- per month and having minimum of expenses of Rs.2S,OOO/- with unknown medical expenses of the dependents i.e., the revision petitioner's mother, widowed sister and special child, has to necessarily incur loans from the year 2015 when he lost his job. However, the information provided by the revision ) \ RY,J Crlrc 1O74 2O24 8 petitioner shows that he has no loans though his monthly expenses are higher than his income.

8. Coming to the case of respondent Nos.l to 3, on one hand, respondent No.1 claiming that she has no work and no income as she is spending her entire time taking care of the special child/respondent No.3 at home. In case, respondent No.l is taking care of respondent No.3 without going to d.o any work, there is no need for respondent No.l to seek expenses towards payment of care taker at Rs.18,OOO/- per month. The said claim of respondent No.l alone shows that- respondent No.1 has engaged a care taker and therefore, she is free to pursue her career as TV artist.

9. Coming to the case of respondent No.2, the claim of respondr:nt Nos.1 and 2 is that respondent No.2 is unmarried daughter and therefore, respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance as she is not able to support herself and she is still a student, whereas, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is already married and has a husband to support her and therefore, the RY,J Crlrc_lO74_ 2024 9 petitioner is not under liability to pay for her maintenance. Irrespective of the rival contentions, the fact remains that there is no evidence on record to prove that respondent No.2 is married and therefore, for all practical purposes, this court has to proceed on the premise of respondent No.2 being an unmarried daughter, is entitled to maintenance if not under Section 125 of the cr.P.c., then under section 2o of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19s6. This court, having regard to the citations relied. upon by the trial court reported in Abhilo.sha (supra 1), R.Kitrba Kqnmo,i a. L.Rajans and scnd,eep Kumrautat a. Antima Kumrawata, is of the considered opinion that respondent No.2 is also entitled for maintenance until she gets married and her case has to be considered under Section 20(31 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

10. The fact that respondent No.1 is seeking maintenance for payment to the care taker crearly gives rise to inference that there is a care taker engaged to take care of respondent '11 ruU (Crirninat) 220) { ZOZf Latest Caselaw 17515 Mp RY,J Crlrc_1O74- 2024 10 No.3. [n such an instance, respondent No.l can pursue her profession either as TV artist or in any field and is held to be capable of maintaining herself and therefore, she is not entitled to grant any maintenance. The trial Court has come to an appropriate conclusion about not granting maintenance to respondent No. 1.

11. Coming to the case of respondent No.2, there is ambiguity about the marital status of respondent No.2 and her status as a student or an employee. The only expenses need to be considered in respect of respondent No.2 are as follows: S.No. I

2. 3 4 Particulars Amount Groceries Fuel Gas bill Travelling expenses Total Rs.3,O0O/- Rs.4,O0O/- Rs.3OO/- Rs.3,OOO/- Rs.1O,3OO/- From the above calculation, respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.'10,300/- per month. The one RY,J CrLrc_1O74_ 2O24 LL time medical bil of Rs.g, 169/- pertaining to respondent No.2 is excluded, while computing her monthly expenses. 12' coming to the case of respondent No.3, the expenses that need to be considered are as follows: S.No. Particulars 1 2 3 4 Care taker Medical expenses Groceries Additional expenses Total Amount Rs.18,OOO/- Rs.3,OOO/- Rs.4,OOO/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.3O,OOO/- From the above calculation, respondent No.3 is entitled for maintenance of Rs.3o,ooo/- per month. The one time medical bill of Rs.52,sD3/- pertaining to respondent No.3 are excluded.

13. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is under obligation to pay onry hatf of the mainr.enance amount and the remaining harf of the expenses have to be borne by respondent No.r. This court is of the considered opinion that respondent No.l does not have stable profession where she may or may not get work as a TV artist on a continuous basis' Further, due to the advanced age, the chances of ) ) RY'J Crtrc-lO74- 2O24 L2 respond.ent No.l as a TV artist may have decreased' In view of the same, while respondent No.l is entrusted with the burden of maintaining herself, the responsibility of maintaining respondent Nos'2 and 3 has to be borne by the revision petitioner who is well educated and' who is capable of maintaining himself and also has a share in his parent's properties. t4.()nelegalissueraisedbytherevisionpetitioneris thatoneM.C.wasfiledintheyear2oogseekingmaintenance and that the present M'C' under the revision is not maintainable. In that context, learned. counsel for the revision petitionerplacedrelianceonthejudgmentoftheHighCourt ofDelhiinthecaseSunitaa.ViiagPol@Mohd'sorbid' wherein, it is held as follows: "8. The question before this Court'is uhere once a firourobte ord-er hals alread'g been passed on meits "und.er section 125 Cr.P.C, can a sUbsequent petition be filed under Section 125 Cr'P'C'? 9. This Court notes tttat a petition under Section 1'25 Cr.P.C. will be couered bg the pinciple of res judicata du.e to its uniuersal ipplicabititg, as proce-edings un.d.er Section 125 Cr'-P'C' are Quasi-Criminal in t 2022 o AD (Del) 574 ) III RY,,I Crlrc_1O74_ 2O24 13 nature. Once the petition has been a.djudicated under Sectton 125 Cr.P.C. fauourablg by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, a. subsequent petition cannot be preferred which aruses from tlrc same dispute lnuing similar situations, circumstances and grounds as the preuiouslg adjudicated rssues in the earlier petition fi.l.ed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

15. The meanirug of tlrc legal maxim "Res Judbata" sfems from the Latin maxim "Nemo Debet Bi.s Vexari Pro Una Et Eadem Cattsa", which traruslates to that no person be tried for the same offence tutice (Ref. State u. Nalini, (1999)5 SCC 253). The Apex Court in Nagabhushanammal Vs. C. CLnndilteswaralingam, 2016 4 SCC 434, obserued that the terun oRes Judicata', refers to the "things adjudicated" or "an issue that has been definitiuelg settled by judicial decision"- Further, obseruing the uniuersal applicabilita of the pinciple of res judicata as held in the case of M. Nagabhushana u. State of Karnataka, (2O11)3 SCC 4O8, it can be infened that the principle of Res Judicata shall applA to both ciuil and cimirual proceedings in order to secure the interest of justice and multipie litigations. The obseruation of the Hon"ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under-

12. Tlne princtples of Res Judicata are of uniuersal application as it is based on two age old pinciples, namely, 'interest reipublicae ut sit ftnis litium' uhich means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and th.e other principle is 'nemo debet his ue ari, si constet curiae quod sit pro un aet eademn cause' meanirug th.ereby that no one ought to be uexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the Court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine o/ Res Judbata is common to alt ciuitized sgstem of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a Court of competent jurisdtction should be regard.ed as final and conclusiue determination of the questions -! 0 ) RY,J Crtrc_1O74_ 2024 L4 litigated and should for euer set the controuersy at rest.

13. That principle of finality of litigation b based on high pinciple of public policy. In the absence of such a pinciple great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law in as much as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitelg uexing his opponent bg repetitiue suits and actions. This mag compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of Res Judicata has been euolued to preuent such an anarchy. Tf,il is why it is perceiued that the plea of Res Judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental pinciple which susfains the Rule of Laut in ensuring finalitg in litigation. This pinciple seeks fo promote tnnestg and a fair administration of justice and to preuent abuse in the matter of accessing Court for agitating on issaes which haue become final betu.teen the parties.

16. Coming back to the present case, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since, maintenance u)as not being paid bg resportdent in the fi.rst maintenance petition it LLad entitled him to file a fresh case, is meritless, as in that case, the proper rec:ourse will be to file exeantion petition for recouery of arrears of maintertance." (Verbatim reproduced)

15. 'lhis Judgment is strictly not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, earlier maintenance case was disposed of on merits linally and the subsequent a. ) RY,J Crlrc-|O74_2024 15 maintenance case is filed on the ground that husband is not paying maintenance.

16. In the instant case, the first M.C. fited by respondent No.1 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the year 20O9, has been withdrawn, on account that some kind of settlement of disputes between the couple. Having withdrawn the Maintenance case in the ye.ar 2oo9, respondent No.1 filed the present Maintenance Case only in the year 2O2O which goes \ \ to show that there was no issue about the maintenance of respondent Nos.l to 3 inter alia during2OOg to 2O2O. When the M.C pertaining to the year 2OOg has been withdrawn, for practical purposes, it is deemed that there was no M.C filed seeking rnaintenance. Therefore, this court does not see any grounds to question the maintainability of the.present M.C, which is under revision, as being barred by Res ju dicata.

17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing the maintenance amount from RS.8O,OOO/- per month [Rs.3O,OO O/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.So,ooo/- per month to respondent --ts r ( RT,J C rc_1o74._ 2024 15 No.3l to RS.4O,3OO/- per month [Rs.1O,gOOl- per month to respondent No.2 and RS.3O,OOO/- per month to respondent No.3l. The revision petitioner is at libergr to file a modilication petition as and when evidence can be produced to prove that respondent No.2 is married to absolve himself of paying maintenance to respondent No.2. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed. SD'- N SRIHAR,I DEPUTY REGISTRAR (/ ,/TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Family Court-Cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

3. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Ms C.SUNEETHAMMA, Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PS s HIGH COURT DATED:2311012025 ORDER CRLRG.No.1074 ot 2O24 ( * J L THE S 14 \ 16. 25 t'ou ZG L. oFspATCH EO * PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE .)r