Disposed

J.Radhika v. J.Sai Babu and another

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021CRLP/1726/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the criminal petition challenging a stay order in a Domestic Violence appeal. It held that the lower appellate court recorded adequate reasons for the stay and was inclined not to interfere, directing instead that the appeal be disposed of within three months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed of without interference; directed lower court to dispose of pending appeal within three months.

J.Radhika Vs J.Sai Babu and another — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF^DECEN4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO:1726OF 2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

J. Radhika, D/o. Bikshapathi,^{Age. 44 Years,OccHousehold,F/o H No 12-13-} AlltSa, fht No.303,^{Sri NidhiTo,-wersTaranka, Secunderabad}

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

J. Sai Babu, S/o.^{Late Bikshapathi, Age 49 Years, Occ Unemployee,R/o' 12-1} '1-1 20, Namalagundu, Secunderabad.

¶12

j'l:[""T:J:""

¶13

2 rhe state or rerangana,^{representedbv its s Ho} ir,iouir, Frutic Pro"secutor'High^{Coud6f Telangana, Hyderabad'} "^,,O"ilr',i

¶14

...ResPondent

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased} toquaShtheproceedingsinCrl.M.P.No.l53Tof20lgin(D.V.C)Crl.A.No.895of 2019., dated 12.12.2O1g^{on the file of the lV Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge,} at Hyderabad,^{consequentlyto grant enforcement of directions of the final orders in} D.V.C.No.74 of^{2017 dated21 .08.2019 by the lllMetropolitanl\ilagistrate'} Hyderabad, against^{the Petitioner.}

¶16

I.A, N O: 1 OF²⁰²¹

¶17

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.C praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased} tograntenforcementofdirectionsofthefinalordersinDVCNo'74of2017dated 21 .08.2019 by^{the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the Petitioner,} pending disposal of^{quash/criminal petition'}

¶18

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandum of} GroundsofCriminalPetitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSriR.Narender, AdvocateforthePetitionerandthePublicProsecutoronbehalfoftheRespondent No.2andofSriGRaviChandraSekhar,AdvocatefortheRespondentNo.l.

¶19

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶20

HON BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶21

CRIII INAL PETITION No,l726 OF 2O2L

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Crimi ral Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Crimina Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the order dated 12.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1537 of 2019 in (DVC) Crl.A.N r.895 of 2019 by the IV Additronal l\4etropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad and consequentlv to gra-nt enforcement of c irections of the final orders dated 21.08.2019 in DVC No.74 of 2)17 issued by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶24

Heard S^'i R.Narender, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G.Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the 1"t respondent. Per rsed the record.

¶25

Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner herein, unmarr ed sister of the 1"t respondent, has filed a petition under Secti on 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violer:e Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') vide DVC No.74 of 2017, seek ng several reliefs. Learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, H1,d:rabad, r,ide order dated 21.08.2019 allou'ed the said case in par vi,ith the following directions:-

¶26

a. grant ng protection order prohibiting the respc rdent from committing or aiding or abetting in thr commission of any act of domestic violence agair lt the petitioner,

¶27

b. direc ing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5, )00/- per month to the petitioner under

¶28

^..Secti, 'n^{20 of the act from the date of this order} on or before 10u ofevery month;

¶29

KL,J Crl.P.No.1725 of 2021

¶30

c. directing the respondent to^{provideresidential} accommodation to the petitioner in the house^at Namalagundu, Secunderabad, as claimed^{by the} petitioner or to provide alternative residential accommodation or rent for the alternative accommodation @ Rs. 10,000/- to the^petitioner as contemplated under Section 19 of the^Act, froin the date of this order, on or before^lOft every month;

¶31

d. directing the respondent to^{pay Rs.15,00,000/-} (Rupees Fifteen lakhs) towards compensation and damages to the^petitioner under^{Section 22} of the Act, within four months from^{today in} equal monthly installments;

¶32

e. directing the respondent to^{pay Rs. 10,000/-to} the petitioner towards the costs of^this application.

¶33

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the l"t^respondent herein has filed an appeal vide DVC(Cr1.A.No.895^{of 2019)and} he has also fi1ed an application vide^{Crl'M.P.No.1537of 2019} seeking suspension of the operation^{of the said order,dated} 21 .08.2019 in DVC No.74 of 2017. Lealned^{IV Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad^{ordered thesaid} application vide order dated^{12.12.2019as follows:-}

¶34

The petitioner/ l"t respondent herein is^directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees^Forty Thousand Only) to the respondent/petitioner^herein on or before 10.01.2020 and stay^{is grantedti1l next} date. For compliance call on 10.01.2020.

¶35

According to Sri G.Ravi^{Chandrasekhar, learned counsel} for the 1"t respondent herein that the^{lst respondenthas}

¶36

¶37

KL,J Crl.P.No.I726 of 2021

¶38

¶39

complied with th ) said order which^{fact is not disputedby Sri} R.Narender, learr ed counsel^{for the petitioner herein.}

¶40

Challenl ing the said order, the^{petitioner hereinhas} filed the presen Crimina-1 Petition under Sectioo^{482 of the} Cr.P.C.

¶41

Sri R.l arender, learned counsel for the^petitioner, referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhuwan Moha n Singh vs Meenal and Shailaja^Vs. Khobbannaz an I the order dated L6.O9.2019 in^{Crl.A.No.1399} of 2OL9 (arisin6 out of SLP(Crl)No.72O312019) vvould submit that the appellat e Court without giving any reasons^granted stay of operation of^,,rder dated 21.08.2019 in DVC^No.74 of^2017, The Court has tr decide whether stay can be^granted with^regard to the mainten€ nce awarded by the Court below in DVC case. Without consid :ring the said legal aspects and without any reasons, the Co rrt below has stayed the order^{dated 21.08.2019} in DVC No.74 ,f 2OL7 only on the condition of the^petitioner paying amount 1f Rs.40,000/-.

¶42

On the other hand, Sri G.Ravi Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appea-r ng for the l"t respondent would submit that^the appellate Courl has given specific reasons by considering the entire facts anc also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above l aid^judgments. He has completed his side^of arguments in :he said appeal and the matter is posted to 03.01.202 1 for the arguments of the petitioner herein. The

¶43

'^{AtR20 t4 sc 2825} '?AtF^{,i7 sc1 r74}

¶44

K]-,J Crl.P.No.1726 oi 2O2l

¶45

petitioner herein instead of proceeding with the arguments in the very appeal itself, filed the present Crimina-l Petition. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is a double postgraduate which fact is not disputed by Sri R.Narender, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, he would submit that the petitioner herein has completed M.Com and L.L.M. The l"t respondent has discontinued his Intermediate and he is speechless. With the said grounds, learned counsel appearing or the l"t respondent would submit that there is no error in the impugned order.

¶46

According to the petitioner, both the properties mentioned in the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act in DVC No.74 of 2Ol7 are ancestral properties and the 1"t respondent is enjoying the same. The petitioner is unmarried and according to her she has no source of income. Therefore, she has filed the said application seeking maintenance and other reliefs. Her father passed away in the year 2002 and her mother passed away in the year 1994 . They are al1 5 children including the petitioner to her pa-rents and the 1"t respondent, after the death of their parents, is enjoying the ancestral properties and is not taking care and looking after welfare of the petitioner herein. Considering the said fact, the Court below has allowed the DVC in part with the above stated directions.

¶47

The petitioner herein has filed an appeal challenging the said order and also a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.1537 of 2019 seeking suspension of the said order. The appellate Court vide

¶48

¶49

KL,J Cr].P.Nc.1726 of 2O21

¶50

impugned orde' dated ),2.12,2019 after hearing both the petitioner and t re l"t respondent and on perusai of the entire record, held tha t the relief obtained by the petitioner herein to pay Rs.5,000/- rer month towards monthly maintenance and to further provide accommodation of house at Namalagundu and also to pay an a mount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation and when the: e reliels are to be stayed as sought by the petitioner till dir posal of the main appeal.

¶51

Undo rbtedly, the petitioner herein put to hardship, as the lst respond :nt has not paid the amounts to the petitioner herein. The Cou:t below has also referred the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh (supra) wherein it was m application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and there was :normous delay in disposal of the said petition. Most of the timt , the husband has taken adjournments. The wife sustained herse I as far as she could in that state for a period of 9 years. Therefc re, she is entitled for maintenance.

¶52

i 2. in Sh rilaja (supra) the Honlcle Apex Court observed that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the appellant No. t herein was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. 1/hether she is actua_lly earning are two different requirements. vlerely because the appellant No. 1 therein is capable of ear ning is not, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance ayarded bv the Familv Court.

¶53

KL,J Cr.P.No.1726 ot 2O2t

¶54

In^pratima Devi Vs. Anand prakash in Crl.A.No.1399 of 2ol9 (Arising out of Slp(crr) No.7203 of 2or9, it was a case where the High Court without recording any reason whatsoever, has stayed the grant of maintenance both to the wife and to the minor son. The same should not be done. A husband/ father is duty bound to maintain his wife and child. Unless there are very special reasons, the higher Court should not normally stay such an order.

¶55

In the said case, no reason has been mentioned justifying the grant ol the stay order. Whereas, in the present case, the appellate Court has recorded the reasons including the principle laid down by the Hon'bre Apex court in the above said two judgments. The appellate Court has directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner on or before 10.01.2020 and granted stay till 1O.Ol.2O2O. Thereafter, the appellate Court could not proceed with the appeal due to covlD-19 pandemic situation and also in view of the standard operating Procedure issued by this court from time to time. The appellate Court has already heard the arguments of the 1"t respondent/appellant. The matter is posted to 03.01.2021 for the arguments of the petitioner herein.

¶56

As stated above, the petitioner herein is double post_ Graduate and she is an Advocate. The l"t respondent herein has discontinued Intermediate and is speechless. However, considering the fact that both the properties mentioned in the DVC are ancestral properties, the 1earned Magistrate has

¶57

¶58

KL,J Ci LP.No. 1726 of 2021

¶59

allowed the DV ) in part with the above said directions. Several grounds and cr ntentions raised by the appellant ir-r the appeal requires to be :onsidered by the appellate Court after hearing both the parties . The impugned order is dated 12.l2.2olg.

¶60

Cons.dering the entire facts of the case, more particularly the fact that the very appeal is posted for arguments of the petitioner herein on 03.01.202 1, this court is not inclined to interfere w th the impugned order dated, 12.12.2019. However, learn :d IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, she ll make endeavor to dispose of the said appeal i.e. DVC (Crl.A No.895 of 2019) as expeditiously as possible preferably with n a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copl of this order.

¶61

With t re above said directions, the Criminal petition is disposed of.

¶62

As a s rquel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Pe ition sha-ll stand closed.

¶63

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SEC'TION^OFFICER

l.ThelVAdditionalMetropolitanSessionsJudge,atHvderabad -Co"t

¶69

1. The^{Station nous: orice"r' Ei.llrli"ui'iJpo'iit" StuiionHvderabad District'} 3. Two Ccs^{to the r ,oric pioslc'ili iigh} for the^{stateof Telangana' at} Hvderabad [OU'I

¶70