Dismissed

P.Sangeetha v. K. Muralidhar

Telangana HC19 Jul 2022CRLRC/45/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court examined the maintenance and residence orders under the DV Act. The Court upheld the enhanced maintenance amount as adequate vis-a-vis the respondent's salary and found no grounds to modify the residence order, rejecting the petitioner's claims.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; the impugned appellate order confirming an increase in maintenance and refusing residence order is upheld.

P.Sangeetha Vs K. Muralidhar — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAT)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 45 OF 2018

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 Cd.P.C. against the Judgment in Crl.A.No.612 of 2016 dated 2310812017 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Order in DVC No.1412014 dated 2010512016 on the file of the Court of the XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri.

¶7

Between

¶8

Smt P.Sangeetha, W/o.K.Muralidhar, Occ House wife, Rl/o H.No 37-93-21711 , Plol No 68 road No.3 [,4adhuranagar Colony, Neredmet X Roads, Neredmet, RR Dist

¶9

..,PETITIONER (PETITIONERY APPELLANT)

¶10

AND

¶11

K. Muralidhar, S/o.late fVlanyam, Occ Teacher, Rl/o H.No 5-11-70 Shakuntala Nilayam, old Palamur, Mahabubnagar District

¶12

K.Venkateswarlu, S/o.late Manyam, Occ: Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development at M.P.Damagidda, Rl/o H.No 5-1 1-70 Shakuntala Nilayam, old Palamur,mahabubnagar District.

¶13

K.Vedavathi, Wo..Venkateswarlu, Occ: Housewife, Rl/o H.No 5-11-70 Shakuntala Nilayam, old Palamur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶14

K.Madhusudhan, S/o. late Manyam, Occ: Senior Assistant at TSEB, R/o H.No 5-11-70 Shakuntala Nilayam, old Palamur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶15

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

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS)

¶17

This petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.P.Sangeetha,^{party-in-person} and of the Public Prosecutor^(TG/AP) on^{behalf of} the Respondent No.5 and of Sri T.Rathnaiah, Advocate for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to} 4.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONC URABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SA}IT]{CS,I{ TTEDDY CRIIIINAL REVISION CASE No.4Ti OF 2it:)1€i

¶20

JUDGMEN]':

¶21

'lhis Criminal Revision Casc is irled under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to set asidt' the olders dated 23.O8.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.612 ol 2016, on the file of Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^()ytrerabad, R.R.District and consequentl-v, allou, the D/C.No.14 of 2014

¶22

2 Heard the learned counsel for the petiticner and counsel for the respondents and Asst. Public Prosecutor and peruseC the material on record.

¶23

The petitioner has filed DVC.No.1.l of 12O14 on the lile of )X Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri alleging that her :narriage was held with respond,:rrt )'1o.1 on 17 .O8.2OO( ' and after the marriage the respondents demanded dowry of Rs. 1O,00,O00/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only), gold and bike, for which, petitioner's ptrrents have given Rs.3 00,000/- worth valuables, due to^,rhich, ail the

¶24

¶25

ASR.J Crl.R.C.No.45 of 2018

¶26

respondents harassed and ill-treated the petitioner for additional dowry. F urther contended that thc 1"t responclent 1S u'orking as a Government Employee and earning Rs.20,000/ per month and having own house. The respondent used to visit the house in a drunken condition and was also maintaining illicit relationship. On 3I.12.2006 the respondents visited her house and abused her parents and demanded additionai dowry again on 30.06.20 13 all the respondents trespassed into her parent's house and threatened with dire consequences and demanded to withdrau, the case.

¶27

The 1"1 respondent filed counter denying the allegations and submitted that he never ill-treated the petitioner and they never harassed the petitioner herein and that she is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed by her.

¶28

5 The petitioner examined herself as PWl and also examined PW2 and got marked Ex.Pl to P7 on her behalf. On the other hand, Respondent No.l is examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.Rl on behalf of respondents.

¶29

-1,\1i.,/ ( i. A . ( l.l't.4 .> ol 20 l f)

¶30

6 Alter hearing both the counsel and .ippreciating the docum ents and evidence on recorc .ⁱ ht^'lri:rl Court held t hat -he respondents arcl prol-r ibitt'ci licrn rlomestic violence ar d they vvere directed to pay Rs.5i,0:to/- (Rupees Five Thou,;anc[ only) per month to her ;lr-r,1 Rs.5,000/(Rupees Fi',e Thousand only) per month to her son

¶31

7 Aggrieved by the same, the petitiont:r 1>referred Criminal lppeal No.612 of 2016 on tht' lile ol' A,lditional Metropolite.n Sessions Judge, C.yberirbad L. B.Nagar, Rangaredd y District on the grounds that the lt.arned Trial court has arvarded compensation uncler sectir),r I9 of the Domestic Violence Act and not only to irLcrease the maintenan ce amount of Rs.5,0OO/- I)er month to Rs.12,5O0,'- per month to herself and also tc,^jncrease the maintenan ce amount of Rs.5,0OO/- I)el m,:nth to Rs. 12,500 '- per month to her son as well.

¶32

B The respondent also app,:ared be:ore the Appellate Court and after hearing both thr' parties, the appeal w 1s disposed partly modifying the monthly maintenar ce amount of Rs.75O0/- per fir,tnth to the

¶33

-+ ASR,J Crl. R.C. No.4 5 of 2O18

¶34

petitioner and Rs.7,500/- per month to the son of thc petitioner and refused to a$'ard any compensation.

¶35

9 Aggrieved by tl-re same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

¶36

l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance amount enhanced by the Appellate Court from Rs.5,00O/- to Rs.7,500/- each to the petitioner ald her son is disproportionate that appeared to the income of the 1"t respondent. The counsel further submits that the residence order was not made to enable the petitioner and her son to stay in the portion ol the house belonging to the l"t respondent. Therefore, the counsel prayed to allow the petitioner and enhance the maintenance arnount and to pass residential order.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1"r respondent is paying Rs.3,OOO/- in M.C.No.189 of 2008 and apart from that the residential order has been made and the Appellate Court order of enhancement of maintenance from Rs.5,O00/- to Rs.7,50O/- itself is not^justified and as such the

¶38

\ 5-h'.,1 C,l. F .L) ,\ r..i r ol-?(r /S

¶39

-l

¶40

enh:rnccrrr( nt^()f maintL.nance mav not b( ordrrl d iLnd both thc Courts l>elorv have dealt u,ith the issue :l residential orde r. Apl,rr:ciating the evidence of both the parties, refused to pass residential order. Therefore, l.he counsel prar/ed to d ismiss the petition

¶41

t2 Tl-tus, on hearing the submissions; of ltoth the cor-ursel an 1 perusing the material on re,tord, I he rluestion that arises for consideration is whether the im:tr.rgned order suffers fron r :rny illegality, warrant any interferencr: by tl-ris Cou rt.

¶42

{clmittedly, the marriage of the p,:t;tioner and the 1.t re ipondent $,as held on 17.08.203tr urnd the marriage uas consummated and they are bl(tssei with a son. After the marriage disputes arose betwe(:n them and the petitior Ler liled a Criminal Case and the same was ended in r rcquittal and petitioner 1S residin5i with her parents an, I the respondent is working as a^(,iovernment Teacher. Slre has also filed M.C.No.189 of 2t)(',9 ;rnd the Family Corrrt awarded maintenance 01' Rs..3,OOO/- per month to tL e petitioners.

¶43

() ASR,.,/ Crl.R.C.No.45 of 2O1B

¶44

The learrr-red Addl. Mctropc,litar-r Scssior-rs Judge, Cyderabad, R. R. District in the Criminai Appeai No.6 12 of 2O 16 has modified the maintenancc a\rarded by the Trial Court from Rs.5,000/ to Rs.7,5O0/- to the petitioner and her son from the date of the order passed by the XX 11-t Metropolitan Magistr:rte, Cvberabzrd at Malkajgiri DVC.No.14 of 2014.

¶45

Undisputedly, the 1"r respondent lsa Government Teacher and he \vas getting net salary of Rs.47,751 l-, out of u,hich, he u:rs paying Rs.3,OOO/toward maintenance of the petitioners. In view of the orders in DVC case as modified by the XX learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L. B. Nagar, Rangareddy District the l"t respondent has to pay ln addition to Rs. 13,O00/- an arnount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners.

¶46

Keeping in view of the fact that the net salar5r of the 1"t respondent 1S Rs.47,75I l- awarding the maintenance to the petitioners total Rs.18,OOO/- would be adequate and befitting to the living standards of the family of the I "t respondent. Therelore, the monetary relief

¶47

4.St,'../ (-i1.R C. \r,../- ol l0l'S

¶48

granted b-' the Addl. Metropolitan Sess:otts Judge. CJ,berrtbad, L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District Rs.7,5O0/each to the petitioner and her child is based or.t lhe incomc of the 1",^'espondent and also family status and living standards of the respondent family. Ther-efore, it cloes not warrant an^r interference.

¶49

t7. Soming to the other relief of resirk'ntial order claimed in the present petition, is negativecl ly troth the Courts belrr,,. The learned counsel for the pt:litioner clid not place env material to show that the orde- ,rf both the Courts belc n' suffer from improper apprer:iatio r of t:r,idence or on other facts.

¶50

lB. ln view of the above, I do not find arrl, ju stifiable grounds tc interfere with the findings of ttre inrpugned order. Accc rdingly, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismisst d

¶51

ln the result, the Criminal Revir;r r,rn Case is dismissed, confirming the orders dated 2ll t.)8.12017 in Criminal l.ppeal No.6 12 of 2OL6 on the hle of Addl. Metropolita n Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R. t)istrict.

¶52

ASl?,J (:t'l.R.C.No.4-1 of 2O 18

¶53

¶54

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,if an-r', stand}

¶55

closed.

¶56

Sd/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶57

Note: As^per the orders dated 0B/1'112022 made in l.A.No.2 of 2022 in Crl.R.C.No.45 of 2018 amendments take place as follows^: 1. Read the maintenance amount as^"Rs.3,0001 instead of

¶58

"Rs.1 3,000/- which occurred in Para Nos.1 1 , 1 3 and 1 5 and 2. Read total as Rs.18,0001 instead of Rs.28,0001 occurred rn Para No.16, line No.3. This amended order substitutes earlier order which was dispatched on 1710912022.

¶59

Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

'1 . The Additional l/letropolitan Sessions Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶64

The XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶65

One CC to M/s P.Sangeetha party-in-person (OPUC)

¶66

One CC to Sri T.Rathnaiah, Advocate (OPUC)

¶67

Two CD Copies

¶68

One Spare Copy r'|.rt

¶69

HIGH COURT

¶70

DATED:1910712022 DATED: 171'1112022

¶71

-a:'-=1-::-\
2: ,!l?i ir8

¶72

AMENDED JUDGM ENT

¶73

CRLRC.No.45 ol 2t 18

¶74

DISMISSING THE :RL.R.C.

¶75

?
fi

P.Sangeetha v. K. Muralidhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sangeetha v. K. Muralidhar

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

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Kola Swapna

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Smt. Kola Swapna

Kola Jagannadha Reddy Vs Smt. Kola Swapna

K.Laxmi Kala and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Mir Aijaz Ali Vs The State of Telangana

M. Rajasekhar Vs G. Swapna or Laxmi