Dismissed

Illangi Chitti Babu v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLRC/58/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging an order enhancing maintenance under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. The Court held that the lower order was reasoned and did no warrant interference, noting the unreliability of the petitioner's unpaid salary claim against uncontested household needs. Delay was condoned.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhancement order of 09.03.2017 confirmed; revision petition dismissed.

Illangi Chitti Babu Vs The State of Telangana and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

I/ONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 58 OF 2020

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 3S7 &^{401 of Cr.P.C againstthe Order} dated 09- 03-2017 Passed in CRLM.P.N0.5667 OF 2016^{in CRLI\4.P.NO.3872ol} 2014 in lV.C.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the^{Judicial [t/agistrate of} First Class Bhadrachalam, Khammam District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

lllangi Chitti Babu, S/o. Venkateswarulu, Aged- 40^years, Occ- Junior^Telecom Offic-er (CMTS) H.R.X/.S. No. 200200063 D Card^{No. 252 B S N L, Cellone,} Technicbl Telecom Center 3rd^ground floor, G.B.Block,^{Kolkata,Fl/oC4l4EA,} Block Telecom Factory, Quarters) Salt Lake Area, Sector One^{West Bengal}

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the} State of Telangana- at Hyderabad

¶12

lllangi Bhavani, W/o C. Chittibabu, Age^- 39^years, Occ- Housewife,^R/o Subhash Nagar Colony, Badhrachalam Khammam District.,

¶13

lllangi Abhilash, S/o C. Chittibabu, Age^{- 1} 4^years, minor, Rep'by^{his mother} and natural guardian l. Bhavani, Occ- Student, R/o Subhash^Nagar Colony, Badhrachalam Khammam District.,

¶14

lllangi Vidhula Samyuktha, D/o.C. Chittibabu, Age 12^years, minor, Rep by her mother and natural^guardian l. Bhavani, Occ- Student,^R/o Subhash Nagar Colony, Badhrachalam Khammam District.,

¶15

...RESPONDENTS No.2-4lPETITIONER

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr PC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the^petitioner in CRLIM.P.N0.5667 OF 2016 lN CRLIM.P.NO.3872 OF 2014 IN M.C.No.13 of²⁰¹⁰

¶18

iri

¶19

DT., 09-03-2017^{on the file of the Horiblecourt of Judicial l\4agistrateof First} ctass,Brradrachalam,KhammamDistrict'pendingdlsposaloftheaboveCrl'R.C.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner^{:SRl. A'SAMIR KUMARREDDY}

¶21

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)}

¶22

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2to 4: None appeared}

¶23

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN} ALRE^{VISIONC ASENo.58OF2020}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

HeardMr.A'SamirKumarReddy,leamedcounselforthe petitioner^{and learned PublicProsecutor appearing on behalf of} respondent^{No.1.Despite service of notices'there is no} representatiou^{on behalf of respondent Nos'2 to 4'}

¶28

This^{Criminal Revisionis filed challengingthe order} dated^{09.03'2017 in Crl M'P' No'5667 of 2016 in Crl'M'P'} No.3872^{of 2014 in M'C' No'13 of 2010 passedby the Judiciai} Magistrate^{of First Class'Bhadrachalam'}

¶29

Vide^{the aforesaidorder' the leamedMagistratehas} enhanced^{the maintenance amount to Rs'10'000/- per month from} Rs.8,000/-^{in respectof respondent No'2 herein'while Rs'10'000/-} from^{Rs.6,000/- pel month in respect of respondent Nos'3 and4} helein.

¶30

Perusal^{oi the record would revealthat the marriage of} the^{petitioner with respondentNo'2was perfonned ot24'05'2002'} Thereafter,^{matrimonialdisputes arose between them' According}

¶31

'^{{':::*"!:s:**!:":1?-,"-'i-"..,-}}

¶32

r-----

¶33

¶34

Crl.R.C.,\o.58 of 2020

¶35

to the petitioner, respondent No.2 left his con.rpany voluntarily. He has filed a pe,tition vide F.C.O.P. No.504 of 2018 on the file of Principal Family Court - cum - IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, seeking dissolution of their marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and the same was decreed ex parte on 22.05.2020. .{ccording to the petitioner hereir.r, r'espondent No.2 has not filed any application to set aside the said order and, therefore, the same has attained finality

¶36

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein being rvife and children of the petitioner, had filed a petition under Section - 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for shon'Cr.P.C.') vide M.C. No.13 of 2010 seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein. In the said M.C., responrlent No.2 herein was examined as PW. 1 and the petitioner herein was examined as RW. i. None of them were filed any document. on their behalf. On consideration of the entire material, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam, has allowed the said petition in part vide order dated 18.06.2()12 granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 herein, while an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month

¶37

Crl.R.C.^{No.58oJ 2A20}

¶38

¶39

¶40

to respondent^{Nos'3 and 4 herein each, making a total of} Rs.11,000/-^{per month towards maintenanceto respondentNos'2 to} 4 herein. It is relevant^{to notethat the said order waspassed on} contest and the^{petitioner hereinhas not challengedthe said order'}

¶41

Thereafter,^{respondentNos'2 to 4 hereinhad filed another} application^{vide Cr1.M'P. No'3872of 2014 in M'C' No'13 of 20i0} seeking enhancement^{of the said maintenance amount awarded by} the leamed^{Magistratein the said M'C' In the said application'} respondent No.2^{hereinwas examined as PW'l, and neitherthe} petitioner herein^{was examined hirnself,nor examined any other} witness on his^{behalf. Both the parties did not hle any documents'} However, the^{leamed Magistrate on considerationof the entire} material ailowed^{the said applicationon23'06'2015 enhancing the} maintenance^{amount to Rs.8,000/-per month to respondent No'2} herein while^{Rs.6,000/- to respondent Nos'3 and 4 each' making} the total maintenance^{amount of Rs.20,000/. to respondentNos.2 to} 4 herein. It is relevant^{to note that the petitioner hereinalso did not} challenge the^{said order and, therefore,the same had attained} finality.

¶42

¶43

Crl.R.C. No.58 of²⁰²⁰

¶44

¶45

Whiie the matter stood thus,^{respondentNos.2to 4 herein} have filed another application^{underSection- 127 (1) of the} Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.^{No.5667 of 2016 seeking enhancementof the} said maintenance^{amount. The said petition was allowedby the} Magistrate vide order^{dated 09.03.2017 enhancingthe maintenance} amount to Rs.10,000/-^{per monthfrorn Rs.8,000/- and Rs.6,000/-} respectively per month to respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 from the date of} the said order. It is relevant^{to note that the said order was an en} parte order. In the impugned order,^{the leamed Magistratehas} specifically mentioned^{that despite service of notice, there is no} representation on behalf of the^{petitioner herein. In the said} application, respondent No.2^{was examinedherselfas PW.1' She} sought the enhancement^{of maintenanceamounton the ground that} the petitioner herein^{got promotion from Junior TelecomOfficer to} Sub-Divisional Engineer^{and getting gross salary of Rs.2.00lakhs} per month, besides the same, the^{petitioner herein had other source} of income through bonus^{and D.A. etc. It is also averred thatthe} petitioner herein is living with his^{concubineand spendingamount}

¶46

Crl.R,C. No.58^{of 2420}

¶47

¶48

¶49

to her'. The Court^{below on consideration of the entirematerial} available on record,^{enhanced tl-re said compensation'}

¶50

Mr. A. Samir^{Kumar Reddy, learned counselfor the} petitioner, would submit^{that the petitioner herein is gettingan} amount of Rs.75,281i-^{towards net sa1aryand the said factwas not} considered by the Court^{below. Without servingnotice on the} petitioner herein, the Court^{below had enhanced the said} maintenance amount.^{RespondentNo.2 had received an amount of} Rs.8.00 lakhs towards^{compensation paid by the Land Acquisition} Officer for the acquisition^{of the land stood in the nameof} respondent No.2^{purchased by the petitionerherein' He has also} referred with regard^{to the filingand pendencyof two writ petitions} i.e., W.P. Nos.20799^{of 2017 and 46050 of 2016 and also the} interim order dated^{28.12'2016passedin W'P' No'46050 of 2016'} He would further^{submit that the petitionfiled by the petitioner} vide FCOP No.504 of^{2018 seeking dissolution of his marriage} with respondent No.2^{herein was allowed on22'05'2020' Thereis} no challenge to^{the said order and,therefore, the said order has} become fina1.^{In view of the same,respondentNos'2to 4 herein}

¶51

¶52

¶53

Crl.R.C. No.56 of202a 6

¶54

are not entitled for the enhancement of maintenance amount. However, the petitioner herein has been paying the said maintenance amount in compliance of the orders passed by the Court below. In proof of the same, he has fi1ed copies of statement of accounts, warrant of attachment issued by the Court below. With the said submissions, he sought to set asicle the impugned order dated 09.03 .2017 .

¶55

In view of the above, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.2 herein and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are their children, who are school going children and at present are residing at Bhadrachalam.

¶56

It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has not challenged the order dated i8.06.2012 in M.C. NO. l3 of 2010 ancl the subsequent order enhancing the maintenance amount dated 23.06.2015 in Crl.M.P. No.3872 of 2014 in M.C. No.13 of 2010. According to the petitioner herein, he has been paying the said amount as ordered by the leamed Magistrate and also the enhanced amount to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein.

¶57

KL,J Crl.R.C. No.58 of 2020 7

¶58

,,,

¶59

It is also relevant to note that, according to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, the petitioner herein got promotion from Junior Telecom Officer to Sub-Divisional Engineer and getting an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs per month, apafi from bonus and DA. Whereas, according to the petitioner herein, he is getting an amount of Rs.75,281/- per month towards net salary. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner herein has not mentioned the said fact in the present revision case. He has not filed any salary certificate in proof of the same. During the course of arguments, the petitioner herein was present in the Open Court. When this Court asked him, he has stated that he has been receiving an amount of Rs.75,2g1l_ per month towards net salary and he has not mentioned about his gross salary. He has not filed any proof including his salary certificate

¶60

Whether any application to set aside the order dated 22.05.2020 in FCOP No.504 of 2018 on the file of the principal Family - cum - I\u Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is a mattel of fact and despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, it is a

¶61

''....'"!}e'e'..!8k*-'

¶62

Crl.R.C. No.58 of 2020

¶63

¶64

different proceeding. With regard to the compensation amount, the above said t..o writ petitions are pending and the same are also diflerent proceedings.

¶65

In a petition filed under Section - 127 (1) of the Cr.p.C. seeking to enhance the maintenance amount, this Couft has to consider two important aspects viz., (i) source of income of the parties; and (ii) their sustainability. Admittedly, respondent No.2 herein is a house-wife while respondent Nos.3 and 4 are school going children. Admittedly, at present they are staying in Bhadrachalam Town. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein got promotion from Junior Telecom Officer to the Sub_Divisional Engineer in BSNL. Despite giving opporrunity, the petitioner herein was not present to oppose the petition filed under Section _ 127 (1) of the Cr.P.C. by respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in Crl.M.p. No.5667 of 2016. The Cour-t below considering all the said aspects and also the materiai available on record, enhanced the maintenance amount to the extent mentioned above vide impugned order dated 09.03.2017. Though the impugned order was dated 09.03.2017, the petitioner filed the present revision in 2020 with a

¶66

Lt-

¶67

KL,J Crl.R.C. No.58^{of 2020}

l I

delay of^{576 days. However,this Court has condonedthe said} delay considering^{the fact that the petitioner herein suffered from} hearl attack.

¶72

Respondent^{Nos.3 and 4 are the children of the} petitioner and^{respondentNo.2herein and they are prosecuting} their studies.^{Respondent No'2 hereinhas to maintain herself and} has to maintain^{her children.consideringall the said aspects, the} Court below^{has passed the impugned order' There is no error in it} and it is a^{reasonedorder and it does not warrantinterference by} this Court.^{Thus, the presentrevisionfails and the same is liable} to be dismissed.

¶73

The present^{Criminal Revision Case is accordingly} dismissed confirming^{the order dated 09'03'2017 in Crl'M'P'} No.5667 of^{2016 in Crl.M'P'No'3872 of 2014 in M'C' No'13 of} 2010^{passedby the Judicial MagistrateofFirst Class'} Bhadracl.ralarn.

¶74

KL,J

¶75

Crl.R.C. No.58 of 2020

¶76

¶77

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in

¶78

the revision shall stand closed.

¶79

¶80

,TRUE COPY//

¶81

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGIST

¶82

SECTIO OFFICER

¶83

To,

¶84

The Judicial Magistrate of First Class Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2. fwo CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶85

One CC to SRl. A.SAIMIR KUTVAR REDDIAdvocate [OpUC]

¶86

Two CD Copies

¶87

One Spare Copy

CDL

*.-

i I

f--

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0610612022

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S8^{of 2020}

¶97

1 H S T 14:
( ,<br>+
ooJ 14 JUI{ 2022 ()
rr
A1 c

¶98

DISMISSING^{THE CRL.R,C.}

¶99

V
\o 6
\li <br>c

Illangi Chitti Babu v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illangi Chitti Babu v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

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

Mr. C. Parthasarathy Vs State of Telangana and another

Shabbir Alam Vs State of Telangana

J Chandrayudu Vs The State of Telangana and Another

N.K. Theaters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The state of Telanagana

Resu Krishna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Pothula Shiva Kumar Vs The State of Telangana