Partly allowed

K.Yogeswar Reddy v. the State of A.P and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2023CRLRC/1034/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Revision and Criminal Petition. The appellant's compensation liability under the Domestic Violence Act was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3.5 lakhs due to his disabilities. The Notice under Cr.P.C was recalled upon compliance, and the maintenance relief granted to the respondent was confirmed on the ground of proven domestic violence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/-; NBW recalled upon deposit; Maintenance confirmed; Appeal dismissed.

K.Yogeswar Reddy Vs the State of A.P and Another — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST j TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE k fewHB

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1034 of 2016 &

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10565 of 2022

¶6

CRLRC No.1034 of 2016

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 rZw Section 401 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 15/04/2014 passed in DVC.No.19 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and confirmation orders dated 15/02/2016 passed in Crl.A.No.68 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional Sessions Judge Kadapa.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K.Yogeswar Reddy, S/o. K. Bayya Reddy, Age: 38 years, Occ; Lecturer, R/o. Avulareddygaripally, Nuliveedu Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶10

...PetitionerZAppellantZRespondent No.1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶13

.. .RespondentZRespondent

¶14

Kanala Lalitha, W/o Yogiswar Reddy Age 31 years RZo. D.No 6Z1069. Shankarpuram, Kadapa Town Kadapa District

¶15

...RespondentZRespondentZPetitioner

¶16

IA.No:1 of 2018

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of 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 extend the interim stay granted earlier in Crl.Rc.No.1034 of 2016 dated 18-04-2016 till the disposal of the criminal revision case in the interest of justice.

¶18

I.A.NozI of 2016(CRLRCMP.No:1511 of 2016)

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of 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 operation of the order passed in D.V.C.No.19 of 2012 dated. 15.04.2014, on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and confirmation orders passed by the Hon'ble VI Additional Sessions Judge.

¶20

¶21

Kadapa in Crl.A.No.68 of 2014, dated 15.02.2016 pending disposal of above criminal revision case.

¶22

CRLP No.10565 of 2022

¶23

Between:

¶24

Kanala Yogeswara Reddy,, S/o. Baya Reddy, Hindu.aged about 45 years. Lecturer in Government Junior College.Pulivendula, Resident of Avulareddigari Palli, Nooliveedu village and post. Galiveedu Mandal.Y S R Kadapa District.

¶25

...Petitioner

¶26

AND

¶27

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P Amaravathi

¶28

Kanala Lalitha, W/o. Yogeswara Reddy, D.K.Nagalinga Reddy, aged 35 D.No.6/1059.Sankarapuram, Kadapa City, YSR Kadapa

¶29

...Respondents

¶30

Petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C R/w 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to recall the NBW issued by virtue of docket order dt 27-122022 in Crl.M.P.No.211/2021 in DVC No.19/2012 on the file of Judicial 1* Class Magistrate for Special Mobile Court, Kadapa pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶31

I.A.No:1 of 2023

¶32

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 vacate the suspension order dt. 30-12-2022 in I.A.No 2 of 2022 in CrI.P.No. 10565 of 2022 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.

¶33

I.A.No:2 of 2022

¶34

Petition under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C r/w 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 recall the NBW issued by virtue of docket order dtj27-12-2022 in Crl.M.P.No.211/2021 in DVC No.19/2012 on the lile of Judicial 1 Class Magistrate for Special Mobile Court, Kadapa pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI L J VEERA REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI D PURNA CHANDRA REDDY

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

't-

¶40

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶41

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 1034 OF 2016 & CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10565 of 2022

¶42

COMMON ORDER:-

¶43

Criminal Revision Case No. 1034 of 2016 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 15.02.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. 2nd respondent, who is wife of the petitioner. filed D.V.C.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa against the petitioner and others, seeking protection, maintenance and compensation. The learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 15.04.2014, partly allowed the D.V.C., directing the petitioner herein to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, and to pay maintenance @ Rs.6,000/per month from the date of filing the petition, to 2«d

¶44

¶45

respondent, and dismissed the rest of the claim, The learned Magistrate dismissed the case as against the other respondents in the D.V.C. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2014 before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, and vide impugned Judgment dated 15.02.2016, the appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal, confirming the Order passed by the learned Magistrate. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case i is preferred. 3. respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.19 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kadapa seeking a direction to petitioner herein to pay the compensation amount awarded and in the event of failure, issue a warrant against him. The learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 27.12.2022, issued NBW as

¶46

¶47

against the petitioner. Challenging the same, Criminal Petition No. 10565 of 2022 has been preferred by him.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶49

and the learned counsel for 2"^ respondent. Perused the record.

¶50

Marriage of petitioner with 2^“! respondent took place on 28.08.2005 and at the time of marriage, parents of 2«d respondent gave Rs.5.00 lakh cash, 20 tulas of gold and 1.5 KGs of silver to the. petitioner. Pursuant to the demand made by the petitioner and other respondents in the DVC, father of 2"^ respondent borrowed Rs.50,000/- and gave the same to petitioner. Petitioner is suffering from Diabetes and was not in a position to consummate the marriage in the first night and postponed the same. All the respondents in the DVC demanded her either to agree to have children through respondent No.5 or get additional dowry from

¶51

¶52

her parents. When 2"^ respondent did not agree for the proposal, they sent her to her parents house and suspected her fidelity. They did not allow her to talk with anybody and kept her educational certificates and asked her to eat food which was left by them. Petitioner IS working as a Teacher and earning Rs.30,000/- per month besides having lands and house property. Hence, the D.V.C.

¶53

Petitioner filed counter denying the allegations in the petition filed by 2^ respondent. It is stated that he was working as Attender at T.T.D. 2nd respondent used to leave the petitioner without any intimation and did not consent for cohabitation, After death of father of 2nd respondent in September, 2008, she left the matrimonial home along with her belongings, without intimation, and on enquiry, he came to know that she joined her lover Shahid Basha and left the

¶54

¶55

company of the petitioner. After receipt of notice from 2nd respondent on 05.10.2009, petitioner got issued reply dated 10.12.2010 and requested her to join matrimonial home, but she refused to join him. When 2nd respondent filed a criminal complaint in Chinnachowk police station, the matter was compromised between them for Rs.2.00 lakhs and the complaint was withdrawn, and subsequently, petitioner filed Divorce O.P.No.31 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rayachoty. 2nd respondent is undergoing Teacher Training and is in possession of Rs.2.00 lakhs given by the petitioner. She received her share from the death benefits of her father and she also has ancestral properties worth Rs.50;00 lakhs at Dorasanipalli village, Proddatur. She is earning Rs.6,000/- per month working as a Teacher, Her mother is also getting pension. Hence, the petitioner

¶56

¶57

never deserted her and she has sufficient means to

¶58

maintain herself.

¶59

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 2nd respondent lived with the petitioner only for a period of four months after the marriage and thereafter she deserted the matrimonial home. According to him, the desertion led to non-consummation of the marriage Learned counsel further submitted that there is no territorial jurisdiction for the trial Court to entertain the proceedings and the trial Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is incapable to lead marital life due to chronic diabetes and that the compensation awarded is without any basis.

¶60

He further contended that the petitioner is visually handicapped and he developed his career from the post of Attender to the post of Lecturer and he is a Lecturer in

¶61

¶62

¶63

Economics. The conduct of-2"d respondent herein is that

¶64

she had an intimacy with her friend.

¶65

2nd respondent herein stuck to the recitals mentioned in the complaint.

¶66

Revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC are truncated one. Unless the order impugned is illegal, improper or incorrect, this Court would not normally interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

¶67

10.- In the case on hand. marriage between petitioner and I’t respondent was performed in the year 2005 and they continued their marital life as such till end of 2008. I'St respondent was subjected to mental harassment of not having any issues through her husband. He admitted that till September, 2008, they led family life and there was no physical cohabitation between them. Petitioner admitted that he is visually

¶68

¶69

handicapped. petitioner is pemranenr employee earming -ttit~ in ht. e«e.o. that he has not entered name of 1st respondent in his service register. The aforesaid cireumstances would go to show that petitioner has not complied with the obligation of providing financial security and marital life to 1st respondent. Both the Courts below, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, gave categorical finding that 1“' respondent was subjected to mental abuse and domestic violence, and hence, she is entitled to monetarv i monetaiy relief and maintenance. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or not based on evidence on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to tntertere „eor„ Py .p, c,„r,. “0111 regard to entitlement of monetary relief and maintenance by 1st respondent.

¶70

¶71

A petition came to be filed by I'st respondent herein under Section 26 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 praying the Court to direct petitioner herein to deposit compensation amount of Rs;5.00 lakhs. By the impugned Order in Crl.P.No. 10565 of 2022, the Court below issued NBW as against the petitioner herein for non-deposit of the said amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2"^ respondent herein filed M.C.No.23 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Kadapa and the said petition was partly allowed granting Rs.9,000/- per month as maintenance, apart from the sum of .’.P: ■■■ Rs.6,000/- per month granted in the subject D.V.C. case. and apart from the same, 2'’<i respondent is insisting to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is paying in total a sum of Rs.45,375/- per

¶72

¶73

month to 2nd respondent, as per the salary Certificate, In view of the fact that the petitioner is a visually handicapped person and is suffering from Diabetes, ends of justice will be met if the compensation amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs is modified to Rs.3.50 lakhs, Both the counsel agreed to the proposal made by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case and the Criminal Petition are disposed of, reducing the compensation amount awarded in the Order dated 15.04.2014 in D.V.C.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magi ■ - -agistrate of First Class, Kadapa, as confirmed in the Judgment dated 15.02.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.68 of . 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/and while confirming the Other reliefs granted in the aforesaid orders. The petitioner shall deposit the said compensation amount of

¶74

¶75

Rs.3,SO,000/- within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Thereafter, the NBW. issued against the petitioner vide Order dated 27.12.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.l9 of 2012 shall be recalled, on on a petition filed by the

¶76

petitioner before the learned Magistrate.

¶77

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶78

closed.

¶79

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^SEcfe^??3FFICER

¶80

¶81

J* J***’®’®’ Magistrate of First Class. Kadapa.fwith Record if

¶82

any;

¶83

\ Additional Sessions Judge. Kadapa. 4 Zu®Magistrate for Special Mobile Court. Kadapa. AmaroSr" Section. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Mmaravaii.’

¶84

Two CCs to Sri L J Veera Reddy. Advocate [OPUC]

¶85

V 55® Chandra Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 8 Two^CD Co 7es Buildings at Amaravati [OUT]

¶86

PGR

¶87

HIGH COURT

¶88

DATED: 03/08/2023

¶89

ORDER

¶90

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1034 of 2016 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.10565 of 2022

¶91

m
coJ
452
^^Lpes

¶92

DISPOSING THE CRLRC DISPOSING THE CRLP

K.Yogeswar Reddy v. the State of A.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Yogeswar Reddy v. the State of A.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polepalli Chenna Naveen Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasundhara Bukkapatnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Borusu Saraswathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vipparla Venkata Chala Jagapathi Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Uppu Venkata Durga Praveen Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Pulletikurthi Venkata Padmaja Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh