Dismissed

K. Sathaiah v. Korpuri Saritha

Telangana HC6 Jun 2022CRLRC/700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an appellate order that awarded monthly maintenance to the wife and two minor children. The court rejected the plea that the wife had sufficient means, holding she is a housewife despite the husband's unproven claim of her employment.

What did the court decide?

Interference in the appellate order awarding maintenance was denied; the criminal revision case was dismissed.

K. Sathaiah Vs Korpuri Saritha — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IMONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE A.SANTHOSH^REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 700 OF 2019

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections^{397 & 401 Crl.P.C 1973, against the} Judgment in D.V.Appeal^{No.'181/2017 dated 20103/2019 on the file of the Court of} the Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga^{Reddy District preferredagainst the order} in DVC No.2 of 2014 on the file of the^{Court of the lV MetropolitanMagistrate,} lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Sathaiah, S/o K.Shankaraiah,

¶9

...PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT/^{lST DEFENDANTS} AND

¶10

Korpuri Saritha, D/o,Boddupally^Lachaiah

¶11

...RespondenU Appellant / Petitioner

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{Public Prosecutor,HigtrCourt,} lty{"LgP-a-O .,.RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶14

Petition under Section 397⁽¹⁾ R/w.4181 of^{Cr.P'C prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the lVlemorandum^{of grounds of Criminal Revision Case,} the High Court may be^pleased to suspend^{the operationof the Judgmentpassed} by the Court of Vlll Additional Sessions^{Judge, Ranga Reddy District'at} L.B.Nagar, Dt.20-03-2019 in D.V.APPEAL No.181/2017^{by modifyingthe order of} the Court of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate,^{lbrahimpatnam, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} D1.28-12-2016, in D.V.C.No.2l2O14,^{pending disposal of the CriminalRevision} Case.

lA NO: 1 OF²⁰²²

Between:

Korpuri^{Saritha, D/o BoddupallyLachaiah' W/o-K'sathaiah' Fl/o Loyapally} ' r)irJgl, ilrj'it'[ir r,,lt"oilHanrja aeoov^{District' rerai?,T"iit?!?*"spondent}

¶19

3["tF^tlT;.d:tfi$.{flii,li'n?:?s,"i6:-li"'ft I'",,,,Sahaw W/o.K.sathalanl ...PETITIONERS/^{PROPOSEDRESPONDENT NOS'3 AND 4}

¶20

ANO

¶21

1.K'Sathaiah,S/o.K.Shankaraiah,agedabout35.ye.ars.occ:RTCDriver,Rl/o.H.No.2-35,^{.lair<esar)lniii[#, cfft;-ppit'tvtanoat,Ranga Reddv District'} Telangana State . . ..Respondenu . ..Respondenu ..Respondenu^Petitioner

¶22

. . ..Respondenu . ..Respondenu ..Respondenu^Petitioner

¶23

rhe state^{of relansana,rep' bv its PublicProse.cut3t;H3!"t"HL|Xl?i.3lf} |,..,

¶24

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr' PC praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofgroundsofCriminalRevisionCase,theHighCourt may be^{pleasedto vacate the interim orders made in lA No'1/2019 in CrIRC'} No.700/201^{9 dtd: 8/7/801 9'}

¶25

This^{petition comingon for hearing' upon perusingthe Memorandum of} grounds of criminal^{Revrsion case,and upon hearingthe argumentsof Dr. challa} Srinivas^{Reddy, Advocatefor the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor(TG) on} tr,4adas Bharath^{Chandra, Advocatefor the} behalf of the^{Respondent No 2 and Sri} Respondent^No.1.

¶26

The Court^{made the following: ORDER}

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE^{A.SANTHOSHREDDY}

¶29

CRL.R.C.No.700^{of 2019}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Criminal^{Revision Case isflied againstthe} judgment dated 20'03.2019^{in D'V'AppealNo'181of 201'7the flle of} the Vlll^{AdditionalSessionsJudge, RangaReddy' wherein the said} appeal filed^{by respondentNo'l herein was allowed' directingthe} petitioner to^{pay monthlymaintenanceto respondent No'1 and her} two minor^{children at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to her and} Rs.2500/-^{per montheach to the children ofpetitionerand respondent} No.1 tiil theY^{attain majoritY'}

¶32

The petitioner^{and the first respondentherein are husbandand} wife. The^{f,rrst respondent filed D'V'C'No'2 of 2014 against the} petitioner herein^{and other three respondentsthereinclaimingvarious} reliefs.^{The petitioner and othersopposedthe petition by filing} counter. After^{due enquiry, the leamed Magistrateprohibitedthe} petitioner herein^{and other respondentstherein from committing any} act of domestic^{violence against petitioner herein and her relatives} and also directed^{the petitioner hereinto pay a sum of Rs'5'00lakhs} towards^{compensationunder Section 22 of Protection of Domestic}

¶33

2 "x Crl_Rc-7O0-2019

¶34

Violence Act, 2005 and refused to^{grant maintenanceto the first} respondent herein. Aggrieved by^{the same,the first respondentfiled} appeal in D.V.Appeal^No.181 of^{2017.The leamedSessions Judge,} on re-appreciation of the^{evidenceon record allowedthe appeal and} ordered the petitioner to^{pay maintenanceas statedsupra'}

¶35

Aggrieved by the order impugned,^{the present revision is filed} on the ground that the Couft below^{erred in grantingmaintenance to} the first respondent and two minor children^{without any material} evidence. The appellate Court^{has not placed any reliance on the} evidence of^petitioner herein and^{failed to take noticeof the fact that} the first respondent is doing^{privatejobin mobileshop and also doing} tailoring work and she got sufficient means^{to maintain herself. The} appellate court failed to observe that the trial Court^{has not granted} maintenance to the first respondent and the appellate Court^awarding maintenance is illegal and not sustainable under law.

¶36

Heard leamed counsel for the^petitioner and learned^{counsel lbr} the first respondent. Perused the record.

¶37

ASR,J Crl-Rc-700-2019

¶38

¶39

Admittedly, the^{petitioner and the first respondentare} husband and wife and^{their marriage was held on 05.06.2009and it is} still in subsistence.

¶40

A^perusal of^{the order impugned reveals that the first} respondent ieft^{the society of the petitioneras the petitionerused to} suspect her character^{and on the said groundthe trial Coutt} prima facie held^{that she is not entitled to claim maintenance' which} is found to be^{not tenable. It also revealsthat during the pendency of} DVC case before^{the trial Court at the instanceof petitioner'DNA} test was conducted^{at FSL, Hyderabadand as per the DNArepoft,he} is the biological^{father of the second son of the first respondent'} Therefore,thereisnodisputethatbothsonsareborntothepetitioner' The petitioner^{has made allegationthat the frrst respondent was} leading adulterous^{life and it appears that the petitionerhas gone to} the extent ofalleging^{that the second son born to the first respondent} was not born^{through him, however,he is the biological fatherof} second son in^{view of DNA report.In the saidcircumstances' it was} rightly held by^{the appellateCourt the first respondentwas justified in} living separateiy^{as the act of petitioner amountsto cruelty'}

¶41

¶42

The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. She is doing private.job in mobile shop and doing tailoring work and has got sufficient eamrings to maintain herself. It appears fiom the record that the said fact is not pl'oved by placing any reliable evidence by the petitioner As such, the said contention of petitioner is not considered by the appellate Couft.

¶43

After having gone through the evidence and order impugned more particulatly at para Nos.22 to 25, it appears that the first respondent is not working anylvhere and she is a housewife and she has to maintain herself and her two minor children. The petitioner is working as RTC driver and earning a sum of Rs.23,000/- in the year 2016. In view of the increase in the cost of living, the appellate Court has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the flrst respondent and Rs.2500/- per month each to the two minor sons ol the petitioner and the first respondent till they attain majority tiom the date ofimpugned order.

¶44

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view, that the appellate Court has passed well reasoned order and did not

¶45

ASR,J Crl-Rc_700_2019

¶46

¶47

suf-fer fiorn any intlnnity or illegalities warranting interference by this

¶48

Court at this stage.

¶49

The criminal revision case is dismissed.

¶50

¶51

,TRUE COPYII

¶52

Sd/.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER

¶53

¶54

The Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. (with records, if any)

¶55

The lV Metropolitan Magistrate, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶56

One CC to Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶57

One CC to Sri N4.Bharat Chandra, Advocate (OPUC)

¶58

Two CD Copies

¶59

One Spare Copy

Kj. -9, --4

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/06/2022

,
nll
rlU L lul{
?
.:J "'

¶64

ORDER

¶65

CRLRC.No.700^{of 2019}

¶66

DISMISSING^{THE CRL.R.C,}

¶67

q !
oU<br>D c

K. Sathaiah v. Korpuri Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sathaiah v. Korpuri Saritha

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

Mohd Ayub Pasha, Secunderabad Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

V. Seetamahalaxmi, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B.Yadaiah , P.Nagabhushanam, Hyd., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

B.Anuna Kumari Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Air Liquide Engineering India PVT.LTD.(A1) Newdelhi and 3 Ors. Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Smt. Magdaleena Vs v. Anthony Reddy