Dismissed

Syed Sharif, v. Smt. Sajida Begum

Telangana HC16 Feb 2022CRLRC/1499/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two criminal revision cases filed to challenge maintenance orders. The Court held that the monthly maintenance awards and compensation granted by the Family Court and District Court were reasonable, well-reasoned, and did not require interference despite the petitioner's claims of inability to pay.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Cases No.1499 of 2012 and No.1018 of 2015 are dismissed; interim order vacated.

Syed Sharif, Vs Smt. Sajida Begum — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{NO: 1499 OF 2012} AND CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE^{No.1018 OF 2015}

¶6

criminal Revision case^{filed under sections 397 and 401 of cr.P.c against} the Judgment dated.23.07.2012^{passed in crl.A.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the} Court of the Xl Additional^{District and Sessions Judge (FTC), RangaReddy} District, at L.B. Nagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sved Sharif. S/o. Sved Suleman,^{Occ: Tailor, Rl/o. H.No.12-7-133152'} H'abeebnagai, Kukatpilly,^{Hyderabad (as per cause title). R/o Mungi Village'} Nayalkal Mandal, Medak^District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Saiida Beoum. W/o. Sved Sharif, Occ:^{Household,Rl/o. H.No.12-7-} 133/93, habeeEnagar, Kukitpally^{Village, BalanagarMandal' Ranga Reddy} District.

¶12

2 Babv Mahek Simran. D/o, Sved Sharif,^{Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.12-7-133/93,} Habi:ebnagar. Kukatpally Viilage, Ealanagar^{lr/andal, Ranga ReddyDistrict.}

¶13

3 Master Jahangir, S/o. Syed Sharif,^{R/o. H.No.12-7-133/93,Habeebnqgar,.} ^ Kukatpally Vill-age, Balahagar^{tr,4andal,Ranga Reddy District. (Resp. 2 and 3} being minors, represented by^{their natural mother and guardian i.e.,} respondent No.1)

¶14

4 The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{represented by its PublicProsecutor' High} Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{P. SHANKARRAOPATIL}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^{to 3: SMT R' V. INDIRA KUMARI}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.4:^{THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASEN O: 1018 OF 2015}

¶20

CriminalRevisionCasefiledUnderSectionS3gTand40lofCr.P.Cagainst theorderdated.0g.04.2015passedinmaintenancecaselvl.C'No.214of2010on the file of the^{court of the JudgeFamilycourt, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy} District.

¶21

Between:

¶22

SvedSharif,S/o.SyedSuleman'occupation:Labour'R/o.MungiVillage, N'ayalkal Mandal,^{Medak District, Telangana'}

¶23

...Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

The State of^{Telagnana,through PublicProsecutor, High Courtof Telangana} and Andhra Pradesh.

¶26

Smt. Sajida^{Begum, W/o Syed SharifOcc: House Hold'}

¶27

Baby Mahek^{Simran, D/o. Syed Sharif Occ: Student'}

¶28

tvlaster Jahangir,^{S/o. Syed Sharif Occ: Student (RespondentN-ot-1-11d,1^?'u} -rrr Beino a ivd. minori n. x represented .12^{_1 _} t ce^p z,Ha^{by her natural mother and b ee b n a g a r, Ku kat p a il y guar0lan vi ila g e,B responoental a n a g a r} ".'ii "

¶29

Mandal, Ranga^{ReddY District.}

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

l.A. NO:1 O^F 2015^{(CRLRCM P. NO: 1634 OF 2015)}

¶32

Petition under section^{482 Cr.P .C prayingthatin the circumstancesstated} in the^{groundsfiledin supportof the criminalRevisioncase,the Highcourt may} be^pleased to suspend^{order passed in maintenancecaseNo.214of 2010 order} dated 09/04/2015^{including execution of orders againstthe petitioneron the file of} the Family court Judge,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict, at L.B. Nagar pending disposalof} revision^petition in the^{interestof justice.}

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI'P. SHANKAR RAO PATIL}

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No'1: THE PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2 to 4: SMTR. V. INDIRA KUMARI}

¶36

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

¶37

THE HON,BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶38

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.t499 of 2Ot2 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1Ot8 of 2015

¶39

COMMON ORDER:

¶40

Criminal Revision Case No. 1499 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2OlO, d.ated. 23.02.2012, by which the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal in part, modified the order passed by the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpaliy, and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents herein and also granted an amount of Rs.30,O0O/_ towards compensation and damages.

¶41

Criminal Revision Case No. 10 1g of 20 1 5 is filed aggrieved by the orders rendered by the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in M.C.No.214 of 2OlO,

¶42

Dr'^CSL'J Crl.R(.Nos^{l l99 lo l2 &l0lE 2015 of2015}

¶43

dated 09'04.2015,^{by which the respondents hereinwere} awarded^{monthlymaintenanceof Rs'1'500/- each'}

¶44

The relationship^{between the petltlonerin both the} revision^{cases and the respondentsis that the petitioneris} the husband.^{ResPondentNo' 1 in Cr1.R.C.No.101Bof 20i5} istheState.Theotherrespondentsi.e.respondentNos.2to 4inthesaidcasearewife,minordaughterarrdminorson, respectively,^{of the petitioner'Likewise' the respondents in} Crl.R.C.No.1^{499 of 20L2 are the wife and minor childrenof} the^petitioner.

¶45

Making^{his submissionthat the amountgrantedby} the Family^{Court, Ranga Reddy District'as maintenance} andtheamountgrantedbythelowerappellateCourt, which heard^{the DVC and passed judgmentawarding} monthly^{maintenance is unreasonable' learned counsel for} the^{petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no} occupation^{of his own and he is eking out his livelihood by} doing labour^{work and sufficient proof was produced to} show that^{he has no occupation'but withoutconsidering}

¶46

l>-,--*

¶47

Dr'. CSL.J J Crl.RC.Nos.l499/2012^{&l0lE/2015 of2015}

¶48

the same,^{maintenance was granted in both the DVC and} maintenance^{cases,which is unreasonable'}

¶49

5 Taking this^{Courtto thecontents of Ex.Rl, which} was filed^{in M.C'No'21 4 of 2OlO'' basing on which an award} FamilY^{Court,Ranga ReddYDistrict'} was Passed^{bY the} the Petitioner^{contended that the} learned^counselfor learned^{Judge,in the order made an observationthat only} Photostat^{copyof the card issued by the Gram Panchayat} Secretary^{of Mungi Village' Medak District' was got marked} and the^{said document is inadmissible in evidence' but} indeed,^{originai was marked' The learned counsel also took} this Court^{to the contentsofthe dePosition of RW'1} it was clearlY^mentioned wherein,^{while marking Ex'R1'} that it^{was comparedwith the original' Therefore' this} Court^{agrees with the contentionof the learned counsel for} thepetitionerthatthelearnedJudgeoughtnottohave observed^{that the document is inadmissible in evidence'} When the^{said document^/as compa-redwith the original'} the learned^{Judge ought to have takenthe contents of the} said document^{into consideration' However'asrightiY}

¶50

.1 Dr. CSL.J Crl.RC Nos.1499,2012 & I0lEl20l5 of20l5

¶51

submitted by the learned counsei for the respondents, only because the card issued bv the Gram Panchavat Secretary of Mungi Village, Medak District, is liled to show that the petitioner is working as Labourer under Government Rural Employment Scheme, it cannot be concluded that he has no other occupation. The said document is not a conclusive proof.

¶52

A meticulous perusal of cross-examination of RW.1 the petitioner herein, u'ho deposed u,hen he entered into the witness box, goes to show that he made a clear statement that he was doing tailoring work before his marriage and even after his marriage he continued doing tailoring work in a shop. However, as rightly put-forth, the respondents failed to produce any proof u,ith regard to actual earnings of the petitioner herein.

¶53

Further, another pertinent factor is that the petitioner, during the course of cross-examination u,hen he was examined as RW.1, has clearlv admitted that he made a mention in his counter that he married another girl and begot two children through her. He stated that the said

¶54

Dr. CSL.J C,l.RC.Nos.l4qq/2012^{&l0l8D0l5ot20l5}

¶55

statement^{is not correct' If itis not correct' for what} purpose he^{mentionedin his counter is not clarified'} Learned^{counselfor the petitionerduring the course of his} submission^{stated that the fact that the petitioner married} another^{girl after he left the respondentsherein and begot} two children^{through her is true' One fact that cannotbe} denied is^{that a person, only if he has got the capacity to} maintainhiswifeandchildrenwouldgoformarriagethat too for^{a secondmarriageThis Court is unable to agree} with the^{versionof the petitionerthat he has no capacity to} pay atleast^{the sum of Rs'1'5OO/- per month each to his} wife and^{two children,who are minors' When the orders} under^{challenge are gone through' this Court finds that the} saidordersarereasonableandtheyneednointerference' In the order^{rendered by the Family Court at L'B' Nagar'} Ranga^{Reddy District, in M'C'No'2 14 of 2OlO' the learned} Judge has^{made a clear mentionthat the amount payable} asmaintenancecanbepaidafterdeductingtheamount of the^interim alreadY Paid^{either inPursuance} maintenance^{order in the said M'C' or in the DVCcase'} DVC.No.^{19 of 2OO9, the learnedIX} Further^more,1n

¶56

-rt-

¶57

6 Dr. CSL.J Crl.RC.Nos.l499,20l2 &10182015 ol20t5

¶58

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur, awarded a sum of Rs.750/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.1 and Rs.15O/- per month to each of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. Observing that the said arnount needs modification, the lower appellate Court i.e. the Court of XI Additional District and Session Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, through judgment in Crl.A.No.iO3 of 2OlO, modified said order, which was under challenge, and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to each of the respondents herein and also granted Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and damages. The said amount is neither unreasonable nor whimsical. Further, the order under challenge is well reasoned and the learned Judge has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the petitioner are sustainable in the light of the well reasoned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Courts below, u,hose orders are under challenge. Therefore, this Court holds that both the revision cases are devoid of merits and deserve to be dismissed.

¶59

1 Dr. CSI-,J Ci.RC.Nos.l499/2012 & l0l8/2015 of20t J

¶60

B. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed. Interim order granted by this Court on

¶61

29.08.2012 shall stand vacated.

¶62

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶63

any, shall stand closed.

¶64

SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// /

¶65

SECTION OFFICER

¶66

To,

¶67

The Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge^{(FTC), Ranga ReddyDistrict,} at L.B. Naqa(With records if^anY)

¶68

The Judge Family Court, at L.B. Nagar, Ranga^{Reddy District (With records if} any)

¶69

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶70

One CC to Sri P. Shankar Rao Patil, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Smt. R. V. lndira^{Kumari, Advocate} [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies

¶71

One Spare Copy MIVK gbr \h:-

¶72

HIGH COURT

¶73

DATED: 1610212022

¶74

rr-'
o^:>.
c
i ?9MAR2o22
-lr

¶75

COMMON ORDER

¶76

CRLRC.Nos.1499 of 2012 and 1018 of 2015

¶77

DISMISSING THE BOTH CRIMINAL REVISION CASES

¶78

@ff"-

Syed Sharif, v. Smt. Sajida Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Sharif, v. Smt. Sajida Begum

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

P.Saibaba , Raju, Nizamabad., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Sajida Begum, Karimnagar Dt., Vs State, Thrps. Jagtial Town and Anr, Rep Pp.

Sanda Sreeramulu Vs Sanda Somakka and Anothers

M.Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

K.Jyothi Vs K.Maduleti and Another

The State of a.P., Vs Kotla Jagadesh