PY/ To, SD/ v. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR C

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated 'in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased, to suspend the order dated 1.4-7-1,-2077 passed in M.C.No.15 of 201,5 by the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The Pubtic Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: Sri Prakash yarra. The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 1THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No,72E 2023. DATE: 23.12.2o125 Betwee:n: Md. Marldoom Ali @ Maqdoom Ali AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Ccurt at Hyderabad and others Revision Petitioner Re spondents / ComPlainant ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.11 .2017 passed in M.C. No.15 of 2015 ()n the file of learned Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad. By the impugned order, the petition filed under liection 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking monthly interim maintenance, was allowed by the trial Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner herein, who is respondent in M.C.No.15 of 201.5, is husband of respondent No.2 herein, who is petitioner No.1 in the said MC, wherein respondent No.2 filed the said MC petition seeking mainteriance from the petitioner/respondent and respondent No.2/petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A 1 to AI4 on her behalf and petitioner/respondent filed the counter denying the averments of the respondent No.2/petitioner No.1, wherein he stated that respondent No.2/petitioner No.1 is always under the influence of her family members and also her paternal uncles and she used to disrespect petitioner/respondent and his parents and used to quarrel on petty things. In the year 2OO9, petitioner/respondent residing along with respondent No.2/petitioner No.l in a rented house, but inspite of the same, respondent No.2 continued her harassment on the petitioner herein. Petitioner's father voluntarily gifted a portion of his house to his three daughters and the remaining portion to his wife. In such circumstance, respondent No.2 asked petitioner \ \ 3 herein lo ask his father to transfer the said house in favour of her children, for which petitioner's father refused and respon<lent No.2 quarreled with the petitioner on that issue and lefi- him and he performed second marriage.

3. Fleard Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitiorrer, Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Prakash Yarra, .earned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order by grantir:g monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3,OOO/- to responCent No.2 and Rs.2,O00/- each to respondent Nos.3 and 4 without ascertaining the income sources of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is an auto d river and the trial Court has not considered the submi:;sions of the petitioner herein and without consid,:ring the submissions of the petitioner, huge amount is awar-ded and he is paying the maintenance to the parties even a:ter divorce in the year 2014 and he has no suflicient incomr: to pay the maintenance amount and he has to take care ol'his parents and also his 2"d wife. Hence, he prayed 4 the Court to allow the revision case by setting aside the impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order after appreciating the evidence on record and prayed the Court to dismiss the revision case.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposed the same stating that the amount awarded by the trial Court itself is a neutral amount and respondent No.2 has no income, she is a house wife and she is having two I daughters and even though there is a direction from the trial Court, no amount was paid by the petitioner herein to the respondents and there are no grounds to interfere in the order passed by the trial Court and .prayed the Court to dismiss th6 revision petition.

7. Considering the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the MC is of the year 2015 and the same was allowed in the year 2Ol7 and according to the respondents, the petitioner herein has not paid any amount to the \ \ 5 respon(lents and as seen from the record, the amount awarded by the trial Court is only Rs.7,000/- and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the triatl Court warranting inference by this Court and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

8. ficcordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirnring the order of the trial Court. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall a:so stand closed. / /TRUEC3PY/ / To, SD/- V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR C{ SECTION OFFICER I 1 The Judge, Fanrilv Court at Secunderabacl. t 7 9"" 9g ro Sri Karika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [opuc] I 1 9"" 99 ro Sri prakash yarua, Legal Aid Counsel. ' 4' One CC to the Public ProsecutorlHigh Court Buildings, Hyderabad. [OpUC] 5. Two CD C,rpies. o ' - -r ICK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:23 / 72/ ?-025 ORDER CRLRC.No.72S of 2023 Dismissing the Clriminal Revision case ;. :\ l-, C) 0 g ttu 'ltlz[ * t /\ *