Mr. Hanlal Dharmasoth, S/0 v. 1. Mr Harilal Dharmasoth

'l'his Crirninal Case is tiled by petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2024 passcd by the leamed Principal Sessions Judge- curn-[ramily Court, Medchal-Malka-igiri District at Kushaiguda, ('trial Court'), in M.C.No.192 ol 2022, rvherein a petition filed by respondent No.2 herein-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.2,50,0001 per rnonth was partly allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.90,000/- pcr tnonth along with legal expenses of t I \ RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 Rs.20,000/- and also to pay arears fiom the date of petition within three months in three installments liom the date of order.

3. l hc brief t-acts ot'the case are lhat the petitioner arrd respondent No.2 herein are husband arrd ri it'e respective Iy. According to respondent No.2, their marriage (registercd rnarriage) took place on 19.01.1998 and her lamily members gave dou'n' of Rs.I ,50,000/- in cash and two tulas of gold to the petitioner. -l'he petitioner rvas working as a private employee with monthly salary of Rs. 14.000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner went to United States olAmerica t I ISA) on 14.01 I998 and started eaming 60,000 dollars per annum. On 07.05.1998, their rnarriage ivas perfbrrned as per Hindu rites and customs by incurring expcnses of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined the conjugal societv ofthe petitioner and gave birth to two children out of the rvedlock. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner had suspicious nature and thereibre, did not allow her to have any communication and did not allow her to do any work. Further, the petitioner did not provide any financial assistance to respondent No.2, whereas, he was spending his eamings fbr welfare o[ his siblings and their children. Whenever, respondent No.2 made attempts to ask about the income and savings of the petitioner. he reacted rudely and also physically attacked respondent No.2 on somc occasions and advised her not to 2 I RY,J CRLRC 1t88 2024 intert-ere in his affairs. Further, the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner also encouraged him to treat respondent No.2 like a slave.

4. Further, in the vear 2007 respondcnt No.2 moved to Banglore along with their children. When respondent No.2 asked the petitioner lor money to meet the expenses, he would give halfl of the requirement. In the year 2017, the petitioner rroved pcnnanently to India after many altercations between the couplc. [n ycar thc year 2016, respondent No.2 opened a salon to meet her daily nceds as the petitioner did not give her any money. The said salon went into losses because of' Covid- 19 and it was closed. The petitioner pushed respondent No.2 lrorn first floor due to which she l'ell down and sustained fracture to the leg. Respondent No.2 always made eflorts to adjust and cooperate rvith the petitioner, but the petitioner did not change his adamant attitude. Respondent No.2 has spent nearly 24 years ol marital lit'e where she was not allowed to work and spent her lile maintaining household and upbringing of the children. The petitioner neglected respondent No.2 r.vithout providing sufficient money while he was having income of more than Rs.5,00,000/- per month. Respondent No.2 suft'ered mcntal trauma, maltreatrnent, cruelty and cheating by the petitioner. The pctitioner is having movable and immovable properties whereas respondent No.2 does not have any property and she is dependant I l 3 \ RY.J CRLR(' I188 7024 on her parents and brother for livelihood. Alter separation from the petitioner, respondent No.2 IS living with her parents on their mercy Hence, f'iled maintenance case.

5. The- petitioner opposed the rnaintenance case belbre the trial Court by filing his detailed counter clainring that the nrarriage was solernnized on I 9.0 1.1998 and actual rvedding was perfbrmed as per Scheduled Tribe customs on 07.05.1998 at Gudur. I'he birth oltwo children out of wedlock is admitted, whereas all other allegations about treating respondent No.2 with cruelty, not providing with nrorrey and not allowing her to work are denied. The petitioner claims that he supported respondent No.2 and her family by transferring rnoney while they rvere livin! in LISA. The petitioner has put his property worth I .59 crores in the name ol respondent No.2, gavc Rs.43.02,800/- in cash and also enabled her to stafl a salon by spending amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. Besides that the petitioner purchased gold, sarees, handbags and shoes tbr her. -fhe petitioner denied checking phone records or not allowing respondent No.2 to go out ofhouse. Further, petitioner denied treating respondent No.2 like slave for cooking, cleaning and other needs. Respondent No.2 was repaying loans taken by her father with the money taken ftom the petitioner lor maintenance of both the 4 I RY,J CRLRC ll88 2024 children as well as respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 opened salon in the year 2017 and it was closed in the year 201 9.

6. The petitioner denied pushing respondent No.2 f'rom flrst floor and causing injurics to her. It is thc pctitioner, who gavc money and supported the business of respondent No.2 and the petitioner relied upon the rental agreement dated 30.06.20 [7. rvhich contains the name ol- the salon with advance amount ol- Rs. 1,40,000/- which was given by the petitioner vide cheque dated 01.07.2017 drawn in tirvour of Appte City, through his bank account maintained in State Bank of lndia, lndira Nagar Branch. The petitioner further pror"ided 11s.6,00,000/- including the cheque amount to support her wish to open salon. No complaint is given by respondent No.2 for being pushed by the pctitioner fiom first floor in the month of November, 2017. The petitioner denied getting separated from respondent No.2 in the year 2017 instead they lived together with children till late

2021. 7 . Further, the cause ol' action of the maintenance case is denied. The Petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 has filed the present maintenance case, another maintenance case under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 in M.C.No.296 of 202.2, a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in F.C.O.P.No.1l54 of 2022 and DYC i \ 5 \ \ RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 No.94 of 2024 before the Courts at Medchal-Malkajgiri District and a criminal case yirl' C.C.No.556 of 2022 pending on the flle of the Junior (livil Judgc at Thorrur. Rcspondent No.? irr ordcr to gain unjust benellt ol' easy money flted the afbrementioned cases. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 borrowed huge moncy fiorn the relatives and banks and defaulted. In order to pay of'f debts is clairning hugc money lrom hirn During interregnum between 1999 to 1004, thc petitioner gavc Rs. I 1,40,000/- to his father-in-law fbr various reasons and also provided llnancial assistance for the purpose ol study expenses ol his brother-in-law (brother ol respondent No.2) upto engineering to ir sum ol Rs.6,60,000/- lbr nine years and spent Rs.2.00,000/- tbr coaching fbr writing GRE, TOFEL, etc,. The brother-in-law ol the petitioner failed to get proper score in GRFI and tirerefore, could not pursue MS in USA. The petitioner was asked to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards study expenses of his brother-in-law for MS, but the petitioner denied. Therefore, rcspondent No.2 tortured him emotionally fbr a period of one year in the year 2008.

8. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 used to blackmail him and threaten to commit suicide by keeping him away and ignoring and rejecting his words. Respondent No.2 used Io not talk to relatives ol the petitioner, not support the kids, not taking care olthe house, not cook lood b I RY,J CRLRC ll88 2024 and used to regularly go to lrer hometown. The petitioner paid Rs.90,00,000/- from the year 2015-2017 through many ways and fixed deposits which were meant to their rnarriage expenses were also withdrawn. Respondent No.2 sold gold jewellery worth 600 grarns worth of Rs.30,00,000/- and five kgs silver worth Rs.3,00,000/- and spent Rs.6,00,0001 for opening the salon. Respondent No.2 also tried to murder the pctitioner on three occasions and this was discovered by their daughter. In the month of Juty, 2013, respondent No.2 infbrmed the petitioner her interest to work as LKG teacher and started working in Narayana E-Techno School in Marathahalli, Banglore. She also changed lew other schools from 2013 to2017. Thereaftcr, respondent No.2 borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner to invest in school KidZ Kadugodi and became partner in the said school. The petitioncr asked respondent No.2 to show him the terms and conditions of partnership, but respondent No.2 refused to do so stating that he does not believe his wifb and there is no point in living together. The petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000/- without questions and said school worked t1ll2017. Respondent No.2 lost three mangalsutras for three times in three years between 2014-2016 and Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent each time to purchase new mangalsutra. Respondent No.2 has habit of locking herself and not having physical contact causing panic in family members. In November, 2017, when the petitioner left to India, respondent No.2 ))zt, RY'.I cRl.R( l188 2024 started blackmailing him for money and on 21 .11.2017. when petitioner was in online rneeting suddenly he heard a noise and lound that respondent No.2 was laying on ground floor in the garden. He learnt that she fell down liom first I'loor and accordingly shifted her to Narayana [{rudayalaya Multi Speciality Hospital. She sustained fracture injury and was discharged after three davs. Whcn hcr parents and her brother came to scc her and stayed in Banglore tbr a month, they did not discuss an),lhing about the incident Respondent No.2 inlonned them that she slipped and lell dorvn fi'om tjrst lloor and sustaincd tiacture injury. The petitioner himscll' paid alt thc hospital bills and turlher after two years i.e., on 01.07.2019 surgery was performed removing the implants. Respondent No.2 has conlmitted many acts such as jumping from first floor by way of threatening to commit suicide and threatening to give divorce, sleeping in ashrants, not talking to petitioner lbr months etc. Further, respondent has borrowed rnoney fron-r various individuals as follows I . Borrowed f-rom several local people/relatives Rs.62,40,72 l/-. 2. Pavani tortured/forced Harilal to extract money from him Rs. I .-s9.62.400/-. phone number 97 40252642. 3.Bonou,ed lrom (Jsha Rs. 20,00,0001, phone number 895 I 134441 . 4.Borrowed liorn Janardhan, Rs. 18,00,000/-, phone nun.rber 95917 62333. 5. Bonowed liom Srinivas Koi during Hari's attempt to murder in 2018 attached thc pronrissory note signed by pavani (given postdated cheque as surcty) Rs. I 5.00.000/, Phone number 86 I 8603662. 6. Borrorved fiom Surendra- Sonelhalli, Bangalore, Rs.10,00,000/, phone number 991(r{19(r566. 8 1 I I RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024

7. Borrowed lrom Satish, Sonelhalli, Bangalore filed cheating case, attached the certified case copy from court (given post dated cheque as surety), Rs.6,50,000/-, phone number 974 I 541 008. 8. Borrowed ftom Antony Ra.i during I Iari's murder attempt, mone]' transferred from Antony account to dri.,cr Adarsh Mohan account who is primary accused in the case (cheating case has been filed against Pavani. attached the certified copy lronr thr: court) (given post dated cheque as surcty), Rs.7,00,000/- phone number 91 51999948. 9. Borrowed from Bhargava Reddy. Rs. 1i.50.000/-. phone number 9845454647. 10. Borrowed from Suresh water boy, Rs. 6.00.000/- phone number 9916t83588. I l. Raja taxi driver (Maha Linga. Devcndar. black magic etc) (filed case against Pavani), Rs. 5.00.000/-. phonc nunrber 8867344027. 12. Borrowed from Kavitha, D/o. Bbau. nraid. Rs.4.50.000/. phone number 9886977155. 13. Borrowed lrom Pavithra./Anavan maid. Its.4,50.000/-, phone number 7483s47940 14. Amrutha transgender, trust nroney borrowed lrom her, Chinnnsandra Rs.4,00,0001, phone number 6360695805. 15. Ilonowed from Suma/Srinivas maid. Rs. i,00,000/-. phone number 994540 r668. 16. Prakash gold merchant borrou,ed money against lake jewellery did not pay the borrowed money to hini, Rs.l,85,000/-, phonc number 990072731 I . I 7. Borrowed from Keerthi Raj. Car wash. Kannamangala, Rs. 1,50,000/-. phone number 9845 I 77058. 18. Jayalakshmi, 2 chits money not paid, Rs. (10,0001, phonc number 8147927703. .l9. Kadugodi Finance/Auto Mohan. Rs.50.000/-. phone number 807343t072. 20. Vasantha flower girl, borrowed moncl' from her. Rs. 4,000/-. phone number 9916633384. 2l . 7 credit card loan (SBl, Tata Capital. RUL. tDI]C. lndusind Bank. Tata credit card. SBI), Rs. 9.58,036'-. I otal amount Rs.i.48.10.157t-

9. Respondent No.2 by various means took an amount of Rs. 1,59,62,400/- from the petitioner'. Ilespondent No.2 is t-acing various cases before Courts of law as fbllows: ,| i 9 i1 I l I I I l j RY.J CRLRC lt88 2024 I . Harilal murdcr attempt by Adarsh Mohan. CC NO. 44321201 8, Devanahalli. Kamataka, however the petitioner is the main accused, her name is skipped due to lack of investigation. 2. Pavani moncy recovery case, borro"ved money of Rs.l0 Lakhs, Antony Raj Vs. I'avani. I ACJM. CC No.20261/2022. Bangalore. Kamataka. 3. Pavani mone\ recovery case, borrowed money olRs. l0 Lakhs. Satish Vs.l)ar ani. C(l \o, l -5550/1022, Bangalore, Kamataka. 4. I)avani mone) rccovery case, RBI- Bank Vs. Pavani, PCR No. 1057/202i. 5. Parani. her hrother Praveen and 6 others tried to kilt Harilat, N( R Filcd b1 A.ltaja in Kadugodi PS, Bangalore, Kamataka on 03.0i.2022. Nrr.K( i I'S/CN I Pl. l'512022. 6. Loan promissory note between Srinivas Koi and Pavani Dharmasoth fbr Rs..l-00-000/-. 7. l)avani vs. -l'ata Rs. i.5 l --i I 2/-. tl. Slll Bank legal notice lor non-payment ol' borrowcd money of Rs. 1.4 I .1221. I{cl,No. EDN/060 1 /SOUl'H/CHt:F / 447 60 /34432. 9. Tata Credit Card legal notice for non-payment of borrowed monel' ol' Rs. 1,46.223l- 10. IDt"C First Bank Limited fbr Rs.2,46,086/-, Iegal notice. ll. SBI Crcdit card (card number 0004726429057280105) For Rs. 1.50.234l- legal notice. I 2. Indusind Bank For Rs.85,000/-, Iegal notice. 13. Filed protcst petition 190 Cr.P.C. at Dcvanahalli, Karnataka to add Pavani Dharmasot as main suspect to the Harilal attempt Io murder casc No.44.12/201 8. I)evanahalli. Kamataka. Capital, arbitration case CDN/TCFS /35312021 for loan of

10. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned entire information was suppressed by respondent No.2. The children are living with the petitioner at Banglore. Though, the petitioner made attempts to bring respondent No.2 back to live with him the said attempts failed. It is the petitioner who suffered more physical abuse due to the acts of respondent No.2. The other lamily members of the petitioner also suffered along with him. Thereflore, the petitioner denied the cause of action for filing of the maintenance case and sought lor its dismissal. -/ i0 RY,J CRLRC I188 2024 I l. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court partly allowed the maintenance case by granting Rs.90,000/- per month as rlralntenance to respondent No.2 lrom the date of petition along with Rs.20,000/- legal expenses. Aggrieved by sarnc, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

12. In the grounds of the revision, the petitioner pleaded that the Triat Court failed to consider that his son and daughter are aged about 25 and 23 ycars arrd thcy are in his care and that he has to pay rnontl'rly EMIs ol' Rs.2,52,68 l/- towards home [oan, Rs.3,7921- towards gold loan, Rs.2530/- towards son's educational expenses and Rs.32,000/- towards educational loan of his children. Therefore, in spite of having salary ol- Pts.2.62,117l- and Rs.40,000/- towards rental income, he is left with amount of Rs. I l,l l4l- only. Respondent No.2 worked as teacher for about lbur years and has drawn salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. fhe said bank statement has been marked and the same is admitted by her in the cross-examination. Further, respondent No.2 was running a beauty parlour during the year 2Ol7 ard was eaming Rs.50,000/- per month. It is also pleaded that there is admission by respondent No.2 that during marital life of 25 years, the petitioner has bome all the expenses. However, she voluntarily separated from him without any reason. There is adrnission by respondent No.2 ) ) 11 v RY.J ('RLRC ll88 2024 about thc children being in the care and custody of the petitioner and that their expenses are paft of the petitioner's household expenses. Therefbre, it rvould irnpact the decision of granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. fhe state nrt: nt ol asscts and liabitities o1'the petitioner shows that he has Rs.1.53.21 .f7 l- Axis Bank loan for l7 years with monthly EMI ol Rs.2,52,(r8 l/- ancl other loans from other banks totaling to EMI of Rs.2,59,001/- per rnonth and the said f'act has not been considered by the Trial Court. 'l'he pctitioner pleaded that the-'- have lived happily for 23 years and rnultiple tirnes ofl'cr was made to take care of loans of respondent No.2 and invited her to join the matrimonial society. Despite said fact, respondent No.2 rlade several murder attempts on the petitioner and thc said act shorvs thc nature and intent ol respondent No.2. In the lorgoing circumstances, au,arding ol' Rs.90,000/- per month by the Trial Court towards maintenance. according to the petitioner, is erroneous and not in I tune witlr the n-ratcrial on record as such prayed to set aside the same.

13. Respondent No.2 filed her counter pleading that the judgment of the Trial Court is in conformity with law, proper assessment of evidence and alignment with probabilities of the case. According to respondent No.2, their children are aged about 25 and 23 years and are adults and are financially independent and not dependant on the petitioner. The children 72 l ,i RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 are supporting the petitioner and have taken on the responsibility ol his care. Moreover, the children have chosen to distance themselves from respondent No.2, which demonstrates their independence. With respect to incomc, it is pleaded that the actual income of thc petitioner is Rs.9,00,000/- per month and not Rs.2,52,117l- as claimed b-v him. He has invcstments in mutual funds. F urther, the income of Rs.40,000/- fiorn rent is baseless and he receives more amount as rent lrom multiple properties. Respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner is paying I:Ml tbr house loan and besides that there is no evidence to support his clairn of other EMIs. Further, respondent No.2 pleaded that she worked liom 2014 to 2016 as teacher and had income of Rs.8,000/- per month. Currently, respondent No.2 is medically unfit and therefore, incapable olemployment. Respondent No.2 has no qualification except l0th grade and no tbrrnal employment. The children have distanced themselves and have abandoned respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is living with her parents. It is pleaded that the Trial Court has rightly considered her 25 years of tnarriage where she was excessively frugal and also in the face of insults and humiliation subjected by the petitioner for minor financial discrepancies. Respondent No.2 furlher pleaded that she took care of the famity being accountable for every smallest expense while the petitioner was residing in USA. In case there was adequate financial support she would not have to work hard for ) ) 13 t- RY,J CRLRC lr88 2024 meagre salary. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner has taken all ol her salary leaving her rvith nothing. 'fhe actual income of the petitioner is more than the evidence subnritted befbre the Trial Court- Respondent No.2 ple-adcd that the-l'rial C'ourt decision to grant monthly mainterrance ol Rs.90,,0001 is justified, more-so, when the children are independent. Respondent No.2 also pleaded that the petitioner refused to support her when she is only educated upto [0'h grade and he also withheld Rs.8,000/- eamed by her. Respondent No,2 also pleaded that the petitioner is in a position to pay maintenance and therefbre, the Trial Court has granted maintenance and that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands, as such prayed to dismiss the present revision.

14. , During the arguments. leamed counsel tbr the petitioner referred to the loans taken by respondent No.2 and also the civil and criminal cases pending against her. It is argued that respondent No.2 is a person who spends beyond her means and in the process has caused untold hardship to the petitioner and his children. The children are in the care and custody of the petitioner and do not have anything to do with their mother on account of the troubles caused by her. It is further argued that the petitioner has taken care of respondent No.2 and her needs all through their marital life, but on her own respondent No.2 had left the matrimonial house leaving the 14 t I i i i I RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 children and therefore, she is not entitled to be granted with maintenance. Further, it is argued that while granting maintenance of Rs.90,000/-, the Trial Court failed to consider the expenses to be bome by the petitioner fbr the maintenarrce ol his house and the maintenance of the children. The assets and liabilities tiled by the petitioner clearly show that he has to approximately pay Rs.2,50,000/- per month towards EMIs. 'l'herefore, in spite of having salary ol Rs.2,50,000/- per month and rental incorne of Rs.40,000/-, the petitioner is hardty left with any amount and therefbre grant of Rs.90,000/- per rnonth towards rnaintenance of single lady is unwarranted. t-astly, it is argued that respondent No.2 is capable ol eaming as she already has experience in teaching and has also run a beauty parlour and therefore, it is not a fit case to deem her as a person, who is not capable of maintaining hcrself and theretbre, cannot be granted with rnaintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month. Alternatively, it is argued that even in case this Courl intends to grant monthly maintenance, the same may be reduccd to suit the expenses of a single person.

15. Learned counsel fbr respondent No.2 argued that there was mental and physical torture by the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.2 r.vas compelled to leave the matrimonial house. It is argued that respondent No.2 has spent 25 years of marital life and is currently living with no ) ) 15 ') ;,! I I I I RY.J cRt,RC ll88 2024 suppoft and is depen(lent on her parents fbr rnaintenance. lt is also emphasized that currcntl-v-, respondent No.2 has no employment and income and theretbrc. she is a person/rvife. uho is unable to maintain herself and therefbre, is entitled to qrant of maintenance. 'l'he said maintenance has to be on par with the lilc style she got accustor.ned to during 25 years of marital life. It is argued that any able bodied husband has an obligation to rnaintain his wife and thereflore, the petitioner is under an obligation to maintain his wil'e. Further, grant of r.naintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month is appropriate as the same is required by respondent No.2 to maintain her life style on par with that ol her lit'e while she was with the petitioner Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the present revision

16. The t-acts bomc out by the record are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were rnarried for about 25 years. They lived in USA for about l0 years and then thcy returned back to India. The petitioner, respondent No.2 and their children are citizens ol USA. Respondent No.2 claims that petitioner caused physical and mental torture and also financially deprived her and further. the petitioner used to lock her whenever he went outside. According to respondent No.2, petitioner did not show any respect towards her as wife, nevcr gave any money and never let her have freedom. At one instance, he pushed her down from first floor 16 RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 and the same resulted in fiacture of leg. She is a wife, who is not capable of maintaining herself and therefbre, is entitled to payment of maintenance.

17. 'l-he contra stand of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 was respected and maintained by taking care of her needs in every respect. However, she has habit ol living beyond her means and ended up taking loans ol nearly Rs.3.50.00,000/- fiom various individuals and banks. In that context, there are several civil and crirninal cases filed against her. She has voluntarily left the house and therefore, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. The petitioner clainrs that respondent No.2 threatened him to jump from first floor and rnade false allegations against him. She has left the children leaving them in his care and custody. The petitioner was witling to deal with the debts takcn by respondent No.2 and requested her to join his company, but she not only relused to join him, but also made attempts to murder him. Further, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 worked as school teacher earning Rs.10,000i- per month and also used to run a beauty salon lrom tlie year 2017 to 2019 and therefore, she is capable ol' rnaintaining herself.

18. [n the backdrop of rival contentions, it is seen that during cross- examination respondent No.2 has adrnitted that she visited India eight times. during her 11 years stay in USA with the petitioner and for every visit the ) ) 1,7 ) \ I I I t I I I RY.J ('IU.RC iltt8 2024 travelling expenses rvere borne by the petitioner. Further, during 25 years of marital tife, the petitioner has borne all expenses of respondent No.2. There is admission to the eff-ect that while she rvas pregnant for the second time. the petitioner has sent hcr to thc in-larvs house fbr a period of four rnonths and he had sent rnoney for expenses ol his son and thereafter, she returned to USA after the birth of f'emale child. Respondent No.2 clearly admitterl that she is capablc of running salon. l"urther, while respondent No.2 clairned petitioner had Ac.30-00 of land in his native village, in cross- examination she conceded that he may have only Ac.9-00 of land, but not Ac.30-00 of lancl as clairned by her. Respondent No.2 admitted that photographs under Ex.R-6 show that she was working. as a teacher in a school. Ex.R-7 is appreciation certificate issued by said school authorities. Respondent No.2 denied all the allegations with respect to pendency of criminal cases against her.

19. 'fhe aforen-rentioned contents of the cross-exarn ination show that respondent No.2 made an attempt to show the petitioner in extreme bad Iight about his attitude towards her as a wife and maintaining her dignity Respondent No.2 portrayed petitioner as person, who controlled her freedom and financial status by not allowing her to do any,thing independently, as per the pleadings olthe maintenance case and her chief 18 I RY,J CRLRC I t88 2024 affidavit. However, in cross-examination it is elicited that while they lived in USA as well as Banglore during the time of their marriage in the year 1998 tilt the year 2017, respondent No.2 did not give any cornplaint against the petitioner. In the year 2017, it appears that marital disputes have cropped up culminating in separation of the couple. lt appears that after respondent No.2 started business of beauty salon along with another person there was borrowing ol huge amounts.of money from individuals and institutions. Respondent No.2 claims that she never borrowed said amounts as the entire financial dealings are done by her husband. She claims involvement ol the petitioner in borrowing money from various avenues. The claim of respondent No.2 on one hand may seem probable as she is a tady, who has studied only upto 10tr'standard and there was chance to manipulate. Whereas, on the other hand it is seen that until beauty salon business was started by respondent No.2 in the year 2017, there were no major disputes or fallout between the couple such that they had to approach police. As long as respondent No.2 did not venture to borrow loans that too to an extent of Rs.3,50,00,0001-, there was no fallout between the parties.

20. Coming to the claim of respondent No.2 that she was only a mascot )' *til" th" entire financial transactions were conducted by the petitioner is a 19 I I I t1.i RY,J CRI-RC I18T] 2024 point to be considered. There is a need to pose a question as to rvhy the petitioner, who is successful in his career and has acquired sizeable amount of property u'ould use rcspondent No.2 as a mascot to borrow money from various individuals and institutions. Il such modus oprendi was to be employed by the petitioner to borrow money for illegal gain using responclent No.2 as medium, he could have done so ever since his marriage in 1998 to the year 2017. However, such is not the case. I'Iaving lived marital lif'e ol20 years, without relying upon his wife's eaming, it does not stand to reason that suddenly the petitioner intended to eam money by borrowing money through his wife. 'l'he petitioner, who is Software Engineer, rvho has considerable amount of imnrovable, property need not encourage respondent No.2 to enter into beauty salon business along with another person. It is point to be noted that respondent No.2 worked as school teacher fiom 201 I to 2016 for rnodest income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. During the said time period, there were no complaints and disputes betr.r,een the parties. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Coun is ol the considered opinion that the picture presented by respondent No.2 about the petitioner running her financial transactions from behind scene is not entirely true I 20 RY,J CRLRC l t88 2024 2l . In normal course as per the .ludgment in Rajnesh v. Nehal ol the Honourable Supreme Court of India, both husband and wife are expected to frle atfidavit of thcir respective assets and liabilities in a maintenance case and substantiate the same with supporting documentary evidence. In the present case, respondent No.2 lbr her part has given a list ol movable and irnmovable assets of the petitioner, in support thereot-, relied upon Exs.P-6 to P-II. These alorementioned documents do prove that respondent No.2 owns immovable properr,u-. In response, the petitioner herein produced extensive documentary evidence ranging from Ex.R- I which shows establishment of beauty salon in the name ol respondent No.2, Ex.R-2 summary of bank account, Ex.R-3 rental agreement and Exs.R-4, 5, 19,20, 2l and 22 showing various civil and crin-rinal cases bcing registered against respondent No.2 and other documentary evidence showing amount of money that was spent by the petitioner towards expenses of respondent No.2. Further, evidence is produced to shor.v the loans taken by respondent No.2.

22. In a normal maintenance case, where a wit-e is unable to support herself, the husband is put under an obligation to maintain her. This obligation of the husband to maintain his wile under no circumstances can be translated or twisted to mean that the husband has to bear the ' AtR zozt sc s69 ) \ 27 I I I i I I ,] l t I RY,J CRLRC ll88 2024 consequences ol' either tlioughtless or deliberate spending of money by wife lbr purposcs which nray or may not be meant lor meeting the flnancial needs of the lanr ily 23 . In tl-re instant case, f rrstly there is f-ailure orr the part of respondent No.2 in coming out clean with respect to loans borrowed by her and the civil and criminal cases pending against her. The said lacts were brought to tbrc onlv b1' the petitioner. Even after said lacts were brought to the noticc of the Courl by the petitioner,, there is a blanket denial on the part of respondent No.2 tbr anv mismanagement of finances. To the contrary, respondent No.2 is trying to shift the blame for financial mismanagement on to her husband i.c., the petitioner, claiming that though transactions were done in her name. the actual person conducting such transactions is her husband. Ilaving r.nade such clairn to disown the difficult situation created on account o1'multiple loans taken from individuals and institutions and the resullant civil and criminal cases, respondent No.2 failed to put fbrth convincing evidence before the trial Court to dernonstrate that the petitioner is the real person behind the loan transactions involving her. The black and wlrite evidence on paper and complaints given by vanous individuals and institutions goes to show that it is respondent No.2 ts instrurnental in taking loans. Per contra, the evidence on record shows that 22 I RY,J cRr.RC ll88 2024 the petitioner herein has sufficient source of income and th-rough his prudence he has acquired considerable immovable property with EMIs u4rich are payable within control. '['here are no transactions demonstrated eithcr by rcspondent No.2 or the petitioner to show that the pctitioner at any point of time went out ol control with respect to his flnances. There is no cvidence on record to believe that the petitioner at any point of time had any intention to depend on income of respondent No.2 either for his survival or lor running expenses of his lamily.

24. In these circumstances, this Court is ol the considered opinion that the trial Court has passed the irnpugned order without referring to any of the evidence adduced on record except for considering the income of the respective parties. While there is no dispute about legal ratio laid down in the judgment of Rajnesh (cited supra), the said legal ratio needs to be applied tbr considering amount of maintenance to be granted to the wife for her survival with dignity, but not tbr the purposes ol repayment of loans taken by the wife lor doing business or other linancial activities rvhich have nothing to do with maintenance of the famity. 25 . The impugned order shows that much time has been spent on pleadings and arguments, but no reference is made to the admissions made by respondent No.2 as P.W.2 and the evidence which shows habit of ) ) 23 I I I I RY.J ct{t.Rc ll88 2024 respondent No.2 of borrowing loans from individuals and institutions reflected in the documents exhibited in R series.

26. Ilespondent No.l only locused on demonstrating her r-narital status as rvife of- tl-re pc'titioner, property orvrred by the petitioner and to show that petitioncr did not respect her and she is entitled to maintenance as a wit-e Wh ile so. the petitioner concentrated on dispr oving adverse allegations made against him by' rcspondent No.2 to demonstrate her conduct ol borrorving ol'loans lrorn individuals and institutions and arnount spent bv her during rnarital lil'e over nur.nber of years. There is no rebuttal on the parr ol the pctitioner orr the evidence adduced by respondent No.2 with respect to expenses incurred bv her and the various civil and criminal cases pending against her. On account of failure to assess the f'actual situation ol the present case, tlic trial Court has granted Rs.90,0001 towards mainlenancc on the prernise that petitioner is working as Engineering Manager at Intel Technologies Limited with salary of Rs.2,62,117l- and Rs.40.000/- torvards rcntal income while maintenance needs to be granted to respondent No.2 that too in accordance with tifestyle ol her husband in the matrimonial house. By any stretch of imagination one person's expenses cannot be Rs.90,000/- per month. No matter what kind of expenses are incurred towards fbod and travel, one individual can be 24 j I ) RY,J CRLRC 1188 2024 rnaintained with expenses of Rs.25,000/- per month, which is income lor lorv income t-amilics. Even in case said amount is doubled to meet other cxpenses such as medical and other unfbreseen expenses, an individual cannot spend mol'c than Rs.50,000/- per month

27. Coming to the liabilities ol respondent No.2 towards various individuals and institutions, respondent No.2 might have sonte inkling about the manner in which said liabilities are to be discharged. Further, respondent No.2 wlrile receiving maintenance trom her husband can always do some work in case she needs more money than the maintenance provided by her husband. Respondent No.2 claimed to be medically unfit, but failed to produce any evidence to prove the same. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to believe that respondent No.2 is completely incapable of t ( working.

28. In the circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to modi$ the order passed by the trial Court by decreasing the amount of rnaintenance of Rs.90,000/- granted to Rs.50,000/- per month lor respondent No.2 to lead a decent life on par with the petitioner.

29. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by rnodifying the impugned order dated 14.09.2024 passed by the trial Court in M.C.No.l92 ol 2022 to the extent of the maintenance amount of 25 \ RY,J cRLItC ll88 2024 Rs.90,000/- per month reduced to Rs.50,000/- per month payable by the petitioner hercin. lhc additional amount already deposited if any shall be adjusted. -l'hc arrcars anrount, if any, pencling shall be paid within three months in thrcc installnrents li'onr the date ol leceipt of copy ol this order. Rest ol'the conditions ol the impugrred order, stands affirmed. There shall be no order as to cosls. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand c losed ,TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, Malkajgiri

1. The Principal District and Session Judge Cum Family Court at Medchal

2. One CC to SRI GIRUKA MADHUSUDHAN RAO, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SMT ANUPRTYA SETH|, Advocate [OpUC] { Two CD Copies ADK/PSL J l,t l I 26 HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212025 t\t SLr 3 ?4JANztJ26 t a ,-/ ,cO.z/ 'v -aP/." ORDER CRLRC.No.1188 ol 2024 I PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLRC WITHOUT COSTS G { L,