Partly allowed

Kammati Rajender v. Smt. Kammati Vinoda

Telangana HC8 Nov 2022CRLRC/150/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the maintenance order of the family court awarding Rs.6,000/- per month to the first petitioner and minor children. The court dismissed the revision filed by the husband, finding no illegality in the assessment of his salary from payslips. It modified the award to cover the period from the date of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; maintenance order upheld but awarded from date of petition with arrears to be paid within two months.

Kammati Rajender Vs Smt. Kammati Vinoda — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 150 OF 2020

¶6

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12-10-201 9 in M.C.No. 383 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case - cum- Additional Family Court - cum- XXlll Additional Chief Judge - cum- [X Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kammati Rajender, S/o. late K. Mallaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Govt. Employee (office subordinate), O/o. Engineer-in-Chief (AW)., lrrigation and CAD Department, Jalasoudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad - 82 Ryo. H.No. 7-W88, Teachers Colony, Near Boys Hostel, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

... Revision Petitioner / Respondent

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. Kammati Vinoda, W/o. Kammati Rajender, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o.H.No.^'1-1 1-39/5, Old Custom Basti, Near Community Hall, Begumpet, Hyderabad. - 500 016.

¶12

K. Adarsh, S/o. K. Rajender, Aged about 8 years, (Minor).

¶13

K. Abishek, S/o K. Rajender, Aged about 9 months.

¶14

(Respondent Nos- 2 and 3 are minor represented by the Respondent No.1 as mother and natural guardian)

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep . by Public Prosecutor, High Court, At Hyderabad.

¶16

...Respondents / Petitioners

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in view of orders passed in MC No. 383/2013 dt:12-1O-2019,

¶19

on the file of the Ho r'ble Additional Metropolitan Session^.lr- dlle, for the trial of jubilee Hills Car Bon r Black case cum Addl. Family courl ,)un' X)llll Addl. Chief judge cum lX Addl. I etropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabard, pending disposal of the main case.

¶20

Counsel for the Petil oner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶21

Counsel for the Resl ondents: SRI JAKKAMSEfiI RAVINDRA

¶22

The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLtr DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.150 of 2020

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitionerrespondent against the order dated 12. 10.2019 passed in MC No.383 of 2013 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶26

The parties hereinafter are referred as per their array before the trial court.

¶27

The petitioners (i.e. respondents I to 3 herein) filed MC No.383 of 2013 against the respondent (petitioner herein) on the file of the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly o maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. As per the facts of the case in the MC, the 1't petitioner rvas married with the respondent on 14.02.2001 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Siddipet, Medak District. At the time of marriage, the mother of the 1" petitioner provided a sum of

¶28

I I

¶29

¶30

I)r.GIiR,J Cr rc No 150 o12020

¶31

Rs.40.000/- a: d /2 tula of gold ring as dowrl as, d:nranled by the respondent ap u1 from 2 tulas of gold omamerrts, irouseh rld articles and incurred Rs.1,00,0004 for the rnarriage. lirrt,seq-rently, the 1" petitioner⁽ lnre to know that the respondent supp:6ssgd^'l-re fact that he divorced h ; llrst wife on 24.01 .1997 vide Ol' N <,.1i9 of I 996 on the file of II Add tional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Red,l'r Dis,rict. When the l't petitio'er enquired with him about the sarre h,, gct angry and beat her merilcssly and also tried to kill her b1 t:er;sirq her neck. The 1't petitir ner contended that the respondent use,l to ke,:p her under lock and key in the house, demanded additional do,rr'., of Rs.60,000iand started reglecting her and beating her. 3n^{,i)8.10.2005.} the respondent t .rat the 1'1 petitioner mercilessly and tr i,:d to kill her with a knife. Du, to the intervention of the neighbour:, s)re escaped from his hands.^'i he respondent necked her out of the hor-rse u hen she was pregnant of .hree months by demanding Rs.60,C,00/- to let from her mother. Th r l't petitioner gave birth to th: 2''r p etitioner on

¶32

10.04.2006 rt Mediciti Hospital at Medchal. Her deliv:ry expenses amounting I ) t{s.20,000/- were bome by her mc,tlu:r. T re said news was intimat d to the respondent. But, the respon,lont dil not tum up to see the 'hiid. He fited OP No.480 of 200ii orr the flle of the

<br>

Dr}.lhh*,1

DT.GRR.J Crlrc No.l50 0f2020

¶37

I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the said OP, the I't petitioner filed I.A. No.433 of 2007 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite. The said I.A was allowed on 02.08.2007 granting pendente lite maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and legal expenses. Against the said order, the respondent filed CRP No.1203 of 2008. This Court granted interim stay on condition of paying Rs.1,000/- per month and depositing of Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses. Thereafter, the CRP was also disposed of allowing it partly by reducing the pendente lite maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month, pending disposal of OP No.480 of 2005 on 29.09.2010. The respondent had not paid maintenance to the I't petitioner regularly. Both the parties compromised the matter during the pendency of OP and the OP was dismissed on 21.11.2011 in terms of compromise. Both the^parties continued their marital life, but after 3 to 4^months, again^the , r6spondent started harassing the I't petitioner. The l't petitioner gave birth to the 3'd petitioner on 13.03.2013.^The l't^{petitioner continued} her marital life with the^{respondentconsidering the futureof her} children, but^{the respondent beat her severely and neckedher out of}

¶38

.t Dr.(;RR,J C lrc No.l50^of2020

¶39

the house or 04.07.2013. Having no other go, thr: 1 petitioner retumed to Jer mother's house and was livinr3 rrt he mercy at Begumpet.^'he l" petitioner further submitted tlret the respondent was working as Office Subordinate in the ofllce o1' the Engineer in Chief (AW), rrigation and CAD Department, Jalas,lrdha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad a rd was eaming a monthly salary of Bs.2l,4')0/- and the respondent u rs a money lender and used to give lu nd loa rs to others, he was also aving own houses and was getting ar citioni,l income of Rs.50,000/-, and the total monthly income of tlre resp ondent was Rs.73,490/-.

¶40

The re lpondent filed counter admitting the rr'lationr hip between him and the l" petitioner and that the petitioners 2 and 3 rvere bom out of the w, dlock. But, he denied that dowry rva; giv:n rLt the tirne of marriage. H ,: contended that the delivery expensos^rvcre lrome by him on-ly and dr e to the cruelty of the I't petitioner. lre iled divorce petition vid : OP No.480 of 2005. He contencied that during the pendency o. the said case, the l't petitioner and he'r fan ily members approached rim and assured that the I't petitionel rvculd rrot repeat her behaviour. \s the 1't petitioner accepted her guitt an<l ccnsidering the

¶41

DT.GRR,J Crlrc No.150 of2020

future of the minor son, the respondent agreed to lead marital life with the l't petitioner. But, within a short period of time, she again repeated her past behaviour and started harassing t}re respondent. He also admitted that during the said period, the 3'd petitioner was born and stated that all the expenses were bome by him.

¶46

He contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.14,000/- per month and he was having a widow sister who was totally dependent on him and he was also having two other sisters, who used to visit his house regularly. He was also suffering with neck problem and had undergone surgery and was taking medicines regularly and had to bear the entire expenses from his meagre salary. He contended that the l't petitioner and her mother used to work as Aayas and they were earning more than Rs.20,0001 per month. He also^{provideda job} to the brother of 1$ petitioner, by name, Nagaraj on out sourcing in Irrigation Deparhnent and he was^getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and prayed to dismiss the MC.

¶47

6 During the course of trial,^{the I't petitionerexaminedherself as} PW.1 and marked Exs.Pl^{to P9. The respondent examinedhimselfas} RW. I and marked^{Exs.Rl to R5.}

¶48

¶49

DT.ORR.J ,rlrcNo.l50ol2020

¶50

¶51

After < :rnsidering the oral and documentary⁽ vi(lence on record, the trial cou t allowed the petition directing thr: r,:soondent to pay Rs.6.000/- J ,:r month each to the petitioners I to 3 totalling Rs. 18,000/- I er month towards their maintenance l rrur th : date of the order'.

¶52

Aggrilved by the said order, the responrLrnt pr eferred this revision con' ,:nding that the trial court failed to app r,:c iate the fact that as per Exs.> t to X6 (payslips of the respondent) r's saLLry was only Rs.33,000l rer month, but considered it as rncr,: than Rs.50,000/-. The trial co rt failed to appreciate the fact that tl e I't pctitioner lcft the companl of the respondent voluntarily witho,ll intimr tion and she used to harr ss the revision petitioner and filed^'alse c rses and the DVC case ; iled by her was also pending.^'I'he tral ccurt failed to appreciate tl at during the pendency ofthe OP fileI by the respondent vide OP Nc 480 of 2005 on the hle of the I-Ac,ditional Senior Civil Judge, Ran ;a Reddy District, the l't petition,:r md her family members ap lroached the respondent and settled tilo matler. The trial court lailed lo appreciate that the petitioner filec .'alse :ases against

¶53

DT.GRR,J Crlrc No.l50 of2020

¶54

¶55

,l'

¶56

the respondent before the Mahila Police Station and started harassing him due to which a writ petition was filed by the respondent vide WP No.22508 of 2014 and the matter was closed. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence of the respondent and the exhibits filed by him and prayed to allow the revision.

¶57

Heard learned counsel for the respondent (revision petitioner) and the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents).

¶58

Perused the record and the order of the trial court in MC No.383 of2013. The trial court on considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, observed that the relationship between the parties was an admiued fact and that since 2013, both the parties were living separately and that the respondent was a Government employee.

¶59

With regard to the contention of the respondent that the l't petitioner voluntarily left his company, the trial court observed that the respondent had not specified whether he had taken any^{steps to} bring her back to his company and to take care of the minor children by paying the maintenance and school fee. Except making an allegation that the 1"t petitioner used to visit her parents frequently, no

¶60

I)r GRIi.J rlrc No.l50 of 2020

¶61

¶62

¶63

other allegat ons were made against her to prove lu:r cru:lty towards him. The tri rl court also observed that the responuent was not paying any amount owards the maintenance of the petrt cnJrs lnd was not taking them :rack to his company being husbanc r'. the l" petitioner and father o the petitioners 2 and 3, he neglecte l to mrintain thern though he w .s a government servant and was drarv rg a g,rod salary.

¶64

With ':gard to the salary of the respondent Lhe tr.al court had taken into c, nsideration Exs.Xl to X6, salary slipr.; o1'thr' respondent, produced b1 the Drawing and Disbursement O1'f cel fo the months from Februa 1,2018 to Juty 2018. The trial cour:^, rllserv,:d that as per the payslipr of July 2018, the gross salary of tbe res rondent was Rs.49, 181/- and his net salary was Rs.37,453/- anJ as,rne year had lapsed. by tl e date ofpassing the order, observe,l that defrnitely there would be ar increase in the salary of the respondetrl and ,rwarded only Rs.6,000/-^rer month each to the petitioners I to 3 towards their maintenanc, . This court does not find any illegeLlibr or irnpropriety in the order of the Family Court in coming to the saic ,:onclrrsion.

¶65

I 3. The .:arned counsel for the petitioners {i.r rlher s -rbmitted that the respon lent was only paying Rs.7,000/- per nonth to the

¶66

*--e}.-

¶67

_--_7

¶68

l)..CRR.J Crlrc No.l50 of2020

I I

)

petitioners I to 3 even after the judgment passed by the court below in MC No.383 of 2013 and the respondent was due to pay Rs.11,000/per month from 12.10.2019.

¶74

As the trial couft awarded the maintenance after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and considering the gross salary of the respondent as revealed from the paystips, marked under Exs.X I to X6, it is considered fit to dismiss the revision case upholding the orders of the trial court in MC No.383 of 2013. However, as the court below awarded the maintenance fi'om the date of the order, it is considered fit to modifl the same by awarding it from the date of the petition.

¶75

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholding the order dated 12.10.2019 passed in MC No.383 of 2013 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court^cum XXIII ,Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The revision^{petitioner(respondent)is directedto} pay the maintenance as awarded by the court below to the^respondents (petitioners) from the date of the petition and to pay the arrears of

¶76

Dr GRR,J ..rlrc No 150of2020

¶77

: :10::

¶78

maintenance due from^{the date of petition till daie} 'vithir^{a period of}

¶79

¶80

two (2) rnor:hs^{from the date of this order and continu: to pay the}

¶81

maintenance^as awarded,^{on or before10fr ofevery succeedingmonth'}

¶82

Misce laneous Petitions,^{pendingif any,shall;tand closed'}

¶83

¶84

:;D/. K.ONESIM OEPU'IY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶85

:;ECTION OFFICER

¶86

¶87

1 . The Additiona Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the f^r ial of J ubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast C lse - cum- Additional Family Court - r;um-^(Xlll Additional Chief Judge - :um- lX Additional Metropolitan Sessiorts; .ludge, Hyderabad.

¶88

One CC to Sri 3uresh Shiv Sagar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶89

One CC to Sri .lakkamsetti Ravindra, Advocate [OPUC]

¶90

Two CD Copie ,;

¶91

One Spare Co >y

KUL

HIGH COURT

DATED:08111t2022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1li0 of 2020

¶100

Q,.:
o
,o
?? [1]'l ?'m .:i.
{'
i:
, ,:-'

¶101

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C. @ry€) .ffi'ffi-

Kammati Rajender v. Smt. Kammati Vinoda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kammati Rajender v. Smt. Kammati Vinoda

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

Malipatlollta Panduranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Cassandra Mendonca, Mumbai., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

M/s Viswa Bharathi Mutually Aided Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. Vs G. Janaki Ramulu and another

Kota Narasimha Rao and another Vs Kota Venkata Krishna and 5 others

Bakaram Amarender Reddy Vs Suresh and Another

Mr. Jagmohan Marwah Vs M/s. Equentis Capital Private Limited