Dismissed

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. v. Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira

Telangana HC12 Jul 2022CRLP/8363/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana examined objections to the enhancement of wife's maintenance. The court upheld the lower courts' orders, finding the enhanced amount reasonable given inflation, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance order confirmed; Criminal Petitions dismissed; Pending Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

't !i, tl,

l I I I

i I

I I i I ) I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF^JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{A.SANTHOSHREDDY}

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{6363 OF 2015}

¶10

. i. '.(j;i Between

¶11

Garikapati.Paul Raju,S/o.^{late Jeearathnam,ag9,! 37 years,} .^{Occ: CIS.F} Constdble, Rl/o. Baci<side^{of RC lvl Church, Madhira, KhammamDistrict, presently} working at Sonabhadra District,^{Uttar Pradesh State, Campat Khammam.}

¶12

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶13

AND

¶14

Garikapati Padmaja, Wio.^{Paul Raju,aged29 years, Occ: Housewife-&} . tailorin!, Presently Rio.^{& C/o. PerapoguKoteswar Rao,H.No.2-87, Bapuji} Road, Madhira, Khammam^District.

¶15

State of Telangana, through^{PublicProsecutor, High Court of Judicatureat} Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONERS

¶17

r.^..;sr, Petition under Section⁴⁸² of^{Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the Highcourt may} be pleased to^quash the order^{in crl.M.P.No.65712013 in M.c.No.1of 2005 dated} 1.9.2014 on the file of the^{Judicial Magistrate of IClass,Madhira,and} iubsequently modified in Crl.R.C.No.71^{of 2014 on the file of the I Additional} Sessions Judge, at Khammam^{dated1 1-6-2015,inthe interest of Justice.}

¶18

CRLPMP. NO: 8384 OF 2015

¶19

Petition under Section⁴⁸² 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 stay order^{in Crl.tr4.P.No.957l2O13in M.C.No.'1 of 2005 dated} 1.9.2014 on the file of the^{Judicial Mallistrateof IClass,Madhira,and} subsequently modified in^{Crl.R.C. No.71 of 2014 on the file of the I Addl.} Sessions Judge, at^{Khammam dated1 1-6-2015, pending disposaliifthe}

¶20

quashing petition before this Hon'ble High Court, in the circumstances of the case.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A. HARIPRASAD REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri MUII/MANENI SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I roN' Br.ra sRt,t tis't'tCr,r A.sANTr rosr r Rr,.r)r)Y

¶24

CRL.P.No.tt36l OF 2015

¶25

oRI)r._lt:

¶26

'l'his pctition is t'iled under Scction 481 Cr.P.C..

¶27

seekirrg to cluash thc order, dated 01.09.2014, in Cr.MP.No.9-57 of 2011 in Nl.('.No.l o12005 on the file of thc.ludicial Maeistratc of I'irst Class. Nladhira and subsequently moditicd in Crl RI'.No 7l ol l0l-1 on thc lllc ol I Additional Scssions.ludgc, Khanrrnanr datcd I 1.06.20 r5.

¶28

l llcarcl thc learncd counsel lor the pctitioncr and tlrc Icarrr.'d counseI Ibr thc rcspondents. Pcrused the rccrlrds

¶29

l. .l'lrc pctitioncr is thc husband and the first rcsponrlcnt is the rvilc.^.l hc llcsponde nt filcd M.C.No. I of 2005 Lrndcr Scction l l-r (--r.P.('.. clairnirrg rnainlenancc beforc the Judicial lVllsistratc ol' [rirst^('llss. Vlldhira and the said application u,as disrlisscci. Shc Illcd^{('rl.ltl'.No.ll} ol 2007 bcfbre thc I']rincipal Stssions .ludg.c. Khanrur:rlrr encl nrainLenancc of Rs. l000/- per ntontlr uus !$ntcd vidc ortlcr- tietcd I I .06.2015. Aggricvcd bv thc saicl rrrclcr. the pctiti()n.r' llled^{('rl.['.No.7195} o1' 2008 betbrc tlris^('oLrrt lntl tlrc2..,.

¶30

same was dismissed. Subsequcntly, the first respondent filed Crt.MP.No.957 of 2013 in M.C.No. I ol- 2005 belore the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahidra under Section 127 Cr.p.C. for enhancement of maintenance ol' Rs. I000/- to l{s.5,000/- and the said petition was allowed partly by cnhancing maintenance of Rs.1000/- to Rs.4,000/- per monrh fi.orl rhe date ol- that pcrition. Aggrieved by the same, the presenr criminal petition is Illed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the first respondent herself deserted thc pctitioner and sub.lcctcd him to cruelty. The first respondent filccl a Crinrinatl case against the petitioner and his family members in C.C.No.59 ol 2005 fbr the offences punishable under Sections 49ti-A, 506 IpC ar.rd Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thc saicl case rvas ended in acquittal. He lurther submits that tht-, peririoner is or.rl1,. earning Rs. 13,000/- per month and the r.airrlc,ancc a*,ardccl is excessive and arbitrary.

¶31

Learned counsel for thc Il rst r.rs1-ronde nt subrn ittcd that the petitioner is working as Govcrnrncnl etnl)lovcc and lre is carning

¶32

sufficient incorne and rnaintenance of Rs.3.000/- to the llrst respondent itself is not sulllcicnt and prayed to disrriss thc petition. 6. Thus, the question that ariscs tbr consideratior.r is, whcther the impugned order suffers lrorn any illcgalitl' or irregularity, warranting interfercnce by this Court?

¶33

7 . Section 127 Cr.P.C. cml)o\icrs the^(lourt to^e nhance the maintenance granted undcr Section l2-i Cr.P.C under changed circumstances. Corning to the facts o1'thc prescnt case, initially the first respondent filed M.C.No. I o12005 against the^petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and thc sanre was disnrisscd by the trial Court and when the first rcsporrdcrlt^pre f'errcd Crl,ltt'.No. l3 of 2007 and the leamed Prirrcipal Scssior.rs,ludgc alloned her claim for maintenance on I 1.06.20 l5 and directed the p,-'titioncr to pay Rs.l000/- per month to thc llrst respondcnt. C)n bcins aggrieved, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.7l95 ot'1008 belbre this^(lourr and the same was dismissed conflrtnirtq tltc order of'thc L-arncd scssions Judge. Thus, the ordcr ol^pay ing^{Rs. 1000/ pcr trrontlr to the first} respondent attained finality. Subsctlucntlv^{the flrst rcspondcntt'ilcd} Cll.MP.No.957 of 2013 undcr Sc-ctiorr^{127 Cr.t',( . clairningthat}

¶34

¶35

the petitioner is rvorking as Sub,lnspeclor and his salary was Rs.35,000/- pe r r.nonrh and shc is unable to maintain herself and in view of increrscd cosr ol'living. an ar.nount of Rs. 1,000/- is very meager. On that alrcr considerins thc contentions of both sides, the trial Court enhanccd thc rnaintenance amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.4,000/- vicle order daretl 01.09.2014. The learned Sessions Judge has altcred thc sarne ro I{s.3,000/- vide order dated I I .06.20 I 5 on bcing fl led pelirion by rhe petitioner in Crl.RP.No.7l ol' 2014 and thc said order shall come into force w.e.f. 20. I I .20 li.

¶36

A pcrusal ol'rhc ordcrs ol'troth the Courts below would go to show that sirrilar contentions q,cre raised that the first respondent {llcd crintinal casc ancl thc same was ended in acquittal and his incontc is not sulllcie.nr to ntainrain hirnself, his mother and his brother. As yrcr rhe pr'()\isi()ns ol- Section 127 (l) Cr.p.C. the Court is cntpou crcd to ultc.r thc. rtraintcnance if the wife shows the changed circurnstzrr.rccs ll'orn tltc tirne o1- order of maintenance. As can be seen lionr the irllpuened ot.cicr tbr-about seven years the first respondent is rccciv inq Rs. I .00() l:rc.r rronth towards her monthly

)

I I

\ \

lnaintenance and admittcdly thc priccs ol. commodities have raised and as such. thc Ilrst rcspondcnt is rightly entitled fior alteration of maintenancc to proportionarcll, bcfitting living standards of her husband i.e. the pctitionu.hcrcin.^'l'he petitioner has not shown any reason as to lrow tirc crrhanccn.rent was irnproper and arbitrary.

¶41

It is rrot in dispr.rre rhat rhc peritioner herein is working as a Constable. According rri thc respondents, the petitioner was drawing a salarv ol Rs.i5,000/- per rnonth. According to the petitioner, he rvas earnins. Rs. Li.000/- per month. Contradicting this, no other cvicicnct- is a',,ailable. on record. The leamed Magistrate, having taken tlrrc. rrotc ol' the lact that Rs. 1000/- was awarded about scvcn ;cars allo arrd as thc cost ol living increased by that tintc has ordcrccl cnltrtnccd nraintenance to Rs.4,000/_. But the learned Scssions.lrrclgc bl,ohscrving that about one decade ago Rs. 1,000/- nloltthl. nt.rint!-nllncc ir.as awarded and raising it by 200'4, iL conrcs ro Rs.l.()O0i pcr rronth and has rightly fixed maintenance- rt Rs.l.00() - rrith cllbct fiorn 20. lt.2Ol3. The said order appears to hc rL-as()nlblt uncl .justifiable and do not sulfer lrorn any, inflrrnitr u arranrinu intcrlcrcrrcc olthis Cou11.

¶42

V i 1; ::

¶43

¶44

In vicr.i olthe loregoing discussion, I am of the view that the order passcd b1'learned Sessions Judge, dated 1r.06.20rj. in awarding t.naintcnancc of Rs.3,000/_ to the first responclent in Crl.R.P.No.7l ol 2014 with effect from 20.11.2013 by modifying the oldcr o1'rhc trial Court darcd 01.09.2014 in CrlMp.No.957 ol 2013 in M.(-.No.l of 2005, is hereby confirmed.

¶45

I l' Irr the 'csurt. trre criminar petition is dismissed. Miscclraneous

¶46

Petitions. il'an_v, pending shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/.7 RINIVAS //TRUE COPYII DEPUTY R ISTRAR L f),-.-'

¶48

To, 1. Z. ? iqt.t;qqff+?trit"::,irsj}iHl[.,.,"

¶49

SECTION OFFICER

¶50

of Telangana, at 4. 9nu 99^{ro SRt Al HARtpR} 5. PUCI 6. fii^{33 i; dh'; t'ilf,fr[^H*"4??''i??IfHxd:f.l?} cate [OPUC] 7. une Spare Copy CDL gbr .Nr

t I i I I I i

I [, i,, I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210712022

ORDER

,a tr';;:i: '-
,<br>,1'.
() 21 AuB 2$11
i-li *i
I tC

¶59

CRLP.No.8363 of 2015

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶61

.)/

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. v. Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. v. Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kallu Sreedhar Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Smt. Banoth Chinni, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Rayapuram Sharadha, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

J. Raghuraj, Vs State of Telangana

B.Srinivas Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs Smt. B.Sangeetha, Hyd and 3 Otrs. Rep Pp.

Garikapati.Paul Raju,Sonabhadra Dist,Up State Vs Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira and Another