Dismissed

M. Rajasekhar v. G. Swapna or Laxmi

Telangana HC19 Jul 2022CRLRC/461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revisions filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against appellate orders granting maintenance and alternative accommodation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court found the impugned orders free from infirmity as the appellant failed to prove the respondent's financial independence.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Cases (Nos. 461 and 470 of 2019) dismissed; no relief granted to the appellants.

M. Rajasekhar Vs G. Swapna or Laxmi — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRL.R.C.Nos.461 and 470 of 2019

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.461 of 2019

¶8

Criminal Revision case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.a.No.Sl6 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC --cum- lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, preferred against the Order in DVC.No.91 of 2013 dated 30.4.2018 on the file of the Court of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. Rajasekhar, S/o Late Hanuma Das, aged 40^years Occ Government Service, Ri/o Flat No.302 Venkateswara Residency, Anjan nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioner/AppellanURespondent

¶12

AND

¶13

G. Swapna or Laxmi, Wo M. Rajashekar, aged 32 years R/o B-'l-164iA, Seethanagar Shaikpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenURespondenUComplainant

¶15

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

¶16

...Respondent

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶18

: Petition under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances state in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order in D.V.C.No.91 of 20'13 dated 30-04-20'18on the file of lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad which was confirmed in Crl.A:No.516/2018 dt.10-12-2018 on the file of Additional

¶19

¶20

Metropolitan Session; Judge for Trial of JHCBBC-cum-lX Addit onal Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyr lerabad^pending disposal of the C:rl.R.C. in the^{interest of} justice.

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.470 of 2019

¶22

Criminal Revis ion case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C against the Judgment in Crl.a.Nc.515 ol 2O1B daled 10.12.2018 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolit: n Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC -cum- lX Additional Metropolitan Session; Judge, Hyderabad,^preferred against the Order in DVC.No.91 ot 2013 dated 30.4.2018 on the file of the Court of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶23

Between:

¶24

M. Rajasekher, Sio Late Hanuma Das, aged 40 years Occ Government Service, Rl/o t lat No.302 Venkateswara Residency, Anjan nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad.

¶25

...Petitiorrer/A;rp ellzrnURespondent

¶26

AND

¶27

1 G. Swapna or Laxmi, W/o M. Rajashekar, aged 32 years R/o B-1-164/4, Seethanagar ihaikpet, Hyderabad.

¶28

...Respondent/ResFrondenUComplainant

¶29

The State of^Ielangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, H lderabad.

¶30

...Respondent

¶31

IAN 2 0F 201

¶32

Petition unde r Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances state in the Memor lndum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased :o suspend the judgment in Crl A Nc.515 of 20'18 dated 10.12.2018 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC -cum- lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, l-lyderabad, pending disposal of the Crl.t i..C in the interest of justice.

¶33

¶34

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner in both Crl.R.C's and of the Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.2 in both Crl.R.C's and of Sri M. Phani Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.'1 in both Crl.R.C.'s.

¶35

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶36

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHTfSH 1i].[)DDY

¶37

CRL.R.C.Nos.46l and 47Oof .2019

¶38

COMMON ORDER:

¶39

Thes: Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Sections 397 and 401 ol Cr.P.C by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the judgments ir Crl.A.Nos.5l5 and 516 of 2018, dated 10. 12.2018 on the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBBC-cr rm-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶40

The :evision pbtitioner and the first respondent, who are husband anl wife hereinafter referred to as the petit ioner/husband and the firs respondent/wife in this revision.

¶41

HearI leamed counsel for the petitioner and leamed counsel for the first respondent and perused the material on record.

¶42

The first respondent/wife in both the revision cases filed DVC.No.9t of 2013 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein it was mentioned that her marriage with the petitioner is a love marriage and vvas held on 21.08.2008. After the marriage, they lived happily for some time and thereafter, disputes

¶43

¶44

2 ASR,J Crlrc_461 and 47O_2O19

¶45

arose which leading to filing of complaint before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 read with Sectior 34 IPC, which was registered in crime No.569 of 2009 and the same was registered as C.C.No.769 of 2010. Subsequently, on 05.02.2010 they alleged to have entered into Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) and agreed to live together and lead happy marital life for one week. After that, again the problems recurred. The petitioner left the company of the first respondent and started living with another by name Visl'rwasree and violated the terms and conditions of M.O.U. The first respondent filed counter, but he failed to appear during the trial for crossexamination of evidence of his wi and he was set expafte on 26.04.2017. After considering the averments of the petition and counter and the evidence of first respondent/wife, the trial CoLirt granted maintenance of Rs.22,000/- per month to the first respondent/wife from the date ol order under Section 20 (d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act"), under Section l9 of the Act, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.8.000/- per month towards rent of

¶46

ASR,J Crlrc-46 I^{rrnd 470-2O19}

¶47

¶48

alternative a lcommodation from the date ol order and to^pay Rs.3.00 lak.h s to the first respondent/wife towards c,)mpensation within six m, )nths from the date ol order.

¶49

Again;t the said order, the petitioner'/husband filed Crt.A.No.5l i of 2018 contending that awarding reliel's to the first respondent i; erroneous under law. However, the said appeal was dismissed.^'Mhereas, the second respondent filed Crl.A.No.5l5 of 2016 seekin 3 enhancement of maintenance and a'"vrrding of the same from t re date of filing of the application and the same was allowed in-y rart modilying the order of residence and monetary revtston relief. Ag1;rieved by the same, the present crimrnal petitions are filed.

¶50

Learn:d counsel for the petitioner/husband sucmits that the petitioner h rs not committed any domestic violence and without therebeing ;Lny offence of domestic violence, the a leged reliefs have been 5 ranted by the Courts below. Leamed counsel lurther submits tha. the first respondenVwife is residing sr:parately and running bee uty parlour and having sufficient incorne to maintain herself-. Lei med counsel further contended that the alrpellate Cou( ought not to have granted Rs.12,000/- per mc,nth towards

¶51

4 ASR,J Crlrc 461 and 47O 2Ol9

¶52

maintenance and Rs.5,0001 per month for altemative accommodation from the date of complaint i.e.30.03.2013 till the date of order of leamed Magistrate i.e. 30.04.2008

¶53

Undisputedly, the petitioner/husband failed to adduce any evidence before the trial Court to disprove the contentions of the first respondent/wife. It appears even the evidence of PW. I l'emained unchallenged, as the petitioner/husband failed to crossexamine the first respondenVwife during her evidence in D.V.C.No.9l of 2013, the allegations of the complaint are held to be proved. The evidence of PW. I established the negligence of the petitioner/husband, as he failed to provide any maintenance and neglected her. The first respondent in suppott of her evidence has also examined her father as PW.2.

¶54

In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner is working as Govemment servant and eaming handsome salary as stated supra, but he failed to place any positive proof in support of his contention that the first respondent is having sufficient income to maintain herself and on the other hand, the first respondent^has established that she is tegalty wedded wife of the petitioner. She has no source of income and she was subjected to domestic

¶55

ASR,J Crlrc-.+61 ind^47O-2O19

¶56

¶57

-7

¶58

violence and proved the same with oral and documetttary evidence. Admittedly, ,he petitioner is a Government servant. 1-o prove his financial ca racity, the first respondent examined the General Manager (l inance), Telangana State Minera[ l)evelopment Corporation Limited. His evidence reveals that the petitioner is^a Govemment ernployee and^gettinggross salar)'^of Rs.93.749l-^and net salary o Rs.62,543/-. The petitioner/husband has taken a plea in the count )r that the first respondent/wife is a suspicious nature IS and she he self left the company of the petitioner and she running bea rtv parlour and getting sufficient inconre. But there is no evidenc,' on record to in proof of the same. Further the petitionerAn sband pleaded that he is a cancer patrent and he has undergone < peration and has to spent huge amount for medication. These lacts rre supposed to be proved by the petitioner/husband by deposing be lore the trial Court and adducing oral ar.rd documentary evidence in support of his case, but he did not do so fbr the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the trial Court believec the evidence of the firsr respondenVwife and granted the reLiefs. Since the petitioner/h rsband failed to adduce evidence l.o shou' that the first

¶59

respondenvwile herself left his society and she is having sufficient

¶60

6 ASR,J Crlrc 46i and 47O 2C19

¶61

means and capacity to maintain herself, considering the income of the petitioner/husband, the trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs.22,000/- per month and Rs.8,000/- per lnonth towards rent ol alternative accommodation and also awarded Rs.3.00 lakhs to be paid within six months from the date of order . A perusal of the orders of the appellate Court would reveal that the first respondent/wife has placed cogent evidence to show that she has suffered domestic violence in the hands of the petitioner/husband. The appellate Court in the impugned orders having observed that the factum of his ailment of cancer was not denied by the first respondent/wife, he has to spend some more amount lor his health besides getting medical reimbursement and modified the order of the trial Court and ordered granting of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent for altemative accommodation from the date of filing of complaint. The appellate Court, after taking into consideration of the relevant standard of living has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent/wife and awarded maintenance^{and amounttowards} rent for alternative^{accommodation} from^{the date of complainttill} the date of order, suitably, befitting the^income of^the

¶62

ASR,J Crtlc 461 and 47O 2Ol9

¶63

¶64

petitioner/husb and and having decided all the points in the said appeal, the anpellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petit ioncr'/hust and

¶65

In the iaid circumstances, this Court considers that the impugned ord :rs do not suffer from any infirmity and there are no justifiable rear ons to interfere with the same.

¶66

In view of the above, this Courl is of the 'riew ttrat the order olthe trial Ccurt in DVC.No.9l of 208 and as modified by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.515 of 2018 in Crl.Rc.No.470 of 2019 do not suffer rom infinnity or iltegatity warranling interference

¶67

1i. Accorcingly, the Crl.Rc.Nos. 461 and 470 of 2019 are

¶68

dismissed. P:nding miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand c losed.

¶69

SD/-I{:.SRINIVASA RAo JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

]

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Additiona .Metroporitan Sessions Judge for the Triar of JHCBBC -cum^^{X AdditionatI letropolitan Sessions LuOgelttyOerJOaO} 2. The lVlVetrop:litan Magistrate, Hyderabid.^{' -'-}

¶75

9n"^{CC to Sri P. NagendraReddy,Advocate} [OpUC] 4. One CC to Sri M. Phani Kumar, Aijvocate tOp'UCl 5. Two CD Copk s

¶76

One Spare Cc py gbr

¶77

HIGH COURT

¶78

DATED: 1910i'12022

¶79

<br>.t
1r ulT 2trI7
I

¶80

COMMON OIIDER

¶81

CRL.R.C.Nos .461 and 470 of 2019

¶82

DISMISSING THE BOTH CRL.R.C'S

¶83

M. Rajasekhar v. G. Swapna or Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajasekhar v. G. Swapna or Laxmi

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

P.Sangeetha Vs K. Muralidhar

Mir Aijaz Ali Vs The State of Telangana