The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance to a wife and minor child, finding no illegality in the assessment despite disputes over salary deductions.
The criminal revision case was dismissed confirming the Family Court order awarding maintenance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[321s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RAN|
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1069 OF 2016
Criminal Revision case Under Sections 392 & 401 of Crl.p.C against the Judgment in M.c.No.12 of 2014 dated 22.03.2016 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court cum Addl. District Sessions Court, Nizamabad.
Between:
QV!,N.Mgrthy, S/o. MadhusudhanaCharyulu, aged 30 years, OCc:Senior AssistantArts College, Osmania UniversityCampus, R/o.'H.No. 2-2-184t311 , Bagh Amberpet, Kummariwada, Hyderabad
...PETIT|ONERyRESPONDENT
AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP. NO: 1561 OF 2016)
Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Revision case, the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders dated 22.03.2016 passed in MC. No.12 ot 2014 on the file of the Family court cum Addl. District Sessions Court Nizamabad District.
Thispetitioncomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof Grounds of criminalRevisioncase and upon hearing the argumentsof sri K. Gani Reddy,Advocatefor the Petitionerand of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalfof the RespondentNo.3 and none appearedfor the Respondent Nos.1& 2.
The Court madethe foll'rwing:ORDER
/ I
THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1069 OF2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by thepetitioner, who is respondent in M.C. No.12 of 2014, aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2016 in the said MC on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, allowing the same by granting a maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the I't respondent herein and Rs.2,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein from the date ofpetition.
\
2 DLGRRJ C RC No 1069 of 2016
Rs.2,20,000/-, household articles worth Rs.50,000/_ and spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for marriage expenses and Rs.30,000/_ towards mandapam expenses and performed the marriage. After the marriage, they lived happily only for two months, thereafter the respondent started harassing her demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/_. She was six months pregnant b)' the date of filing the petition. The respondent was sadist in mentality. He demanded her to take bath with cold water, during poumami period from 09.11.2013 to 14.il.2013 and when she requested him, he abused her in filthy language and bet her with shoes and sticks due to which she sustained grievous injuries to her right hand and on both legs. She was four months pregnant at that time. Knowing about the same, her parents approached the respondent and requested him to look after her wefl and not to quarrel. But, he continued the same and beat her on 17.r2.20r3. He used to bite the petitioner during nights and used to keep clothes in her mouth with an intent ion to kill her and used to cry and weep for no reason. He used to prevent the petitioner from going outside as he was scared that someone might come and kill him and suddenly there might be a gas explosion in the kitchen or the house might catch fire due to short circuit. on one occasion, the respondent was taken to Dr.Keshavulu, psychiatrist at Nizamabad, where he behaved like a mad man and abused the doctor in
I
-) DT,GRRJ Crl.RC. No.l069 of20l6
filthy language. The doctor prescribed him medicines and advised to appear on 01.02.2014. when the respondent was taken on the said date, he gave arrogant answers to the doctor due to which doctor was annoyed and asked him to get out of his clinic. As the respondent bet the petitioner severely and drove her out of his house demanding additional dowry, the petitioner came back to her parents house and lodged a complaint on 19.12.2013 upon which a case in Crime No.515 of 2013 under Section 498-4 IPC was registered at Nizamabad Rural police station. As the respondent intentionally drove the petitioner out of his house and neglected to maintain her, the petitioner filed the petition seeking maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month towards medical treatment, food, clothing and shelter. She submitted that the respondent was working as a Senior Assistant in Arts College, Osmania University Campus, Hyderabad and was getting monthly salary of Rs.30,000/-. The respondent was having a building through which he was receiving Rs.25,000/- per month towards rents
4 D, CRNJ Crl R {: No 1069 of20t6
contended that u,hatever attitude the petitioner exhibited and pointed out by him in his notic,: dated 04.03.2014 was attributed by the petitioner to him. It was the petitioner who was imaginative and was having hallucinating attitude. No such incident as alleged by the petitioner took place on 13.11.2011. As per the scanning report dated 08.11.2013 the foetus was 6 to 7 weeks as on that date. The contention of the petitioner that she was four months pregnant on 13.11.2013 was false. It was the petitioner and her family members who tortured and subjected the respondent to mental agony. Dr. Keshavulu was inefficient and inadequate for counseling. The very fact that Psychiatrist and Counselor abused the respondent and entered into a verbal dual with him reflects on his professional competcncy. He stated that he would be having no objection if the petitioner also appeared and both them were evaluated by any other Psychiatrist. He denied that he drove the petitioner out ofhis house and neglected to maintain her and that a case in Crime No.55l of 2013 was registered against hirn at Nizamabad Rural Police Station for the offence under Section 498-4 IPC and charge sheet was filed vide CC No.l94 of 2014 on the file oi II Additional Judicial Magistrare of First Class, Nizamabad.
/ {,
5 D..GRRJ C.I.RC. No.l069of20l6
6 DLGRRJ (:.l R ( No 1069012016
7 DT CRBJ Cr|R.C. No. 1069 of 201 6
the I't petitioner and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated22.03.2016 passed in MC No.12 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Court, Nizamabad.
\
8 Dt GRR) ('rl R t No t06qof20t6
and father' he had a duty to provide maintenance to them. The triar court also observed thrrt no defence was taken by the respondent to show that Pw'l was a rvorking woman and was capable to maintain herserf and PW.2, with her eamings.
I
9
D..CRnJ Cd kC. No.l069ofnl6
that she was staying away from the respondent dueto the harassment or cruelty meted out to her in the hands of the respondent andthe evidence of the witnesses would disclose that the respondenthad also visiteda Psychiatrist, by name, Dr.Keshavulu at Nizamabad andalso annoyedhim with his behavior, this Court finds no infirmity in theorder of the Family Court to set aside the same.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shallstand closed.
SD/.CH,VENKATESHWARLU DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qt
/
SECTION OFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED: 0610912022
.I
( e I
ry stt $)?
-r) tq
ORDER
cRL.R.C.No.1 Cr69 0f 2016
DISMISSING TI{E CRL.R.C
@ 9k'
.-) .
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the intervention was illegal in awarding maintenance.
Whether the Family Court misdirected itself in assessing the net salary of the respondent.
Whether the impugned order should be set aside.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
V.N.Morethy
G. Sahitya
Master Tanvy
The State of Telangana
G. Radha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
