Partly allowed

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy v. Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2 Others

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022CRLRC/819/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision against an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/month to the wife and daughter. The Court found the award excessive given the husband's actual income was lower than claimed and directed a total maintenance of Rs. 15,000/month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified to direct petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 5,000/month to respondent No. 2, totaling Rs. 15,000 from 01.07.2019.

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy Vs Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 819 OF-2019

¶7

Crl. Revision Case Under Sections 397 & 401 of Crl.P.C.,^'1973 against the Order dated 01-07-2019 in Crl.M.P.No. 159 of 2018 in M.C.No. 6^of 2018 on the file of the Court of the XVI Additional District & Sessions^{Judge at} l,4a la kjgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

Panja V.S.K. Harsa tr,4urthy, S/o. Panja Sathyanarayana^{Murthy, aged36 years,Occ.} Un Employee, Rio. Flat No.1 0-3, B-Block^{HemadriTowers, Vivekananda Nagar,} Begameer, Ramalayam Street, Kukatpally, Medchal^{District. Pin. 500072}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

.1.Smt.P.Lakshmi,W/o.V.S.K.HarsaMurthy,Agedabout3lyears,occ. House wife tH/en^{iiuduatelnro' u t'to lo-iostittls'Plot No 115'-sesha} Chooda Nilayam,^{nX.it.C"flty,A S' Rao Nagar' Kapra Mandal'Medchal} District- Pin.⁵⁰⁰⁰⁶²

¶13

2 vears'^OccHouse

¶14

1. Babv Lekhasri,^{D/o V'S K HarsaMurthy''S91} '!:ut wife⁽ MBA^{Graduate)nl"' H irt 'iiiiclzits'} .Plot^{No'1 15' Seshachooda} Nilavam,^{R K.H.cotony,X.i: il} Nugar, [roru yandal^{MedchalDistric! Pin} iepresented^{bv Respondent no l )}

¶15

500062^{( Respondent} "Ji;#;;;;;

¶16

rhe^{state of reransana'Representedo' *:.:;E5'rUi,tTiT!Hish court'}

¶17

HYderabad'

¶18

IA NO:^{10F201 I}

¶19

Petition^underSectio n 482^{CPCPraylngthat in the circumstances stated} maY^be P^leasedtoin e High^Court vit^f iled^{in suPPo rt of the Petition, th} f 20'18^{in M} C No.6^of the susPend^{affidaorder dated.0'1-07 -2019Pass ed in CrlM.P.No.159o} 2018 Pass^{ed bY the XVI AdditionalDistrict andSessionJ udgeat lr,4alkajigirt}

¶20

M/s. P.^{VINAYAKASWAMYAND} Cou nsel^{for the Petitioner:} PVV^{B RAJESWARI} dent No'1 & 2 SRI^{G. PAVANAMURTHY} Counsel^{for ResPon} C PROSECUTOR' dent^{No. 3: TH E PUBLI} Counsel^{for ResPon}

¶21

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶22

¶23

¶24

HON' BLI' SRI .IU S't'I^{CI.,,,.SANTII OSI I ITEI) I)Y}

¶25

CR t..R.C.No.8l9 OF-²⁰¹⁹

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Casc is filed^{against the} order, dated 01.07.2019,ⁱⁿ Crl.MP.No.l59^{ol20l8 in M.C'No.6 of} 2018, on the file of the XVI Additional I)istrict and Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Rcdd1, I)istricl. rvhereirr the said pctition rvas allowed granting rnainrcnance oi Rs.10,000/- llcr month each to rcspondcnt Nos. I and l.

¶28

? 'l'hcir I'he petitioner is the husband of respondcnt No.l marrrage was perforrned on 26.03.201 6 and thc marriage was consummated. Out of wedlock, respondent No.2 was born to them. After that disputes arose between them and since January, 2007 the petitioner was not taking care of respondent Nos. I and 2, they started living in a rcnted housc. I{cspondent No. J was not having any source of income ro maintain herself and her child. As such, she filed M.C.No.6 of 201^g against the petitioner herein under Secrion 125 Cr.p.C., claiming maintenance ofRs. 15,000/_ [o hcr and Rs.5,000/_ to hcr daughter.

¶29

¶30

Along with said M.C., she also filed petition under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. vide Crl.MP.No.l59 of 2018 claiming inrerim maintenance. It is alleged that the petitioner was working as software engineer and drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/per month. After hearing both sides, learned Judge awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent No.l and her daughter lrorn thc date of petition. Aggrieved by the sarne. the hushand filed thc prcscnt rcvision case.

¶31

I'leard counsel lor both the parties and^{perusedthe material} on record.

¶32

Learned counsel lor^{the petitioner contendedthat leamed} Judge awarded^{maintenance without taking into consideration of} the income of^{the petitioner. Learned counselfurther contended} that the^{petitionerworked tilt May, 2017 and was eaming} Rs.30,0001^{per monthand subsequently' he did not get any} employment^{and he is not eamingany income as contended by} respondent^{No'l'As such' the petitioneris unable to pay the} maintenance^{to respondentNo l and prayedto dismiss the revision} CASC.

Leamed counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is working as soft ware E,ngineer and he has sufficient means to pay maintenance and he relused to pay maintain his rvife and daughter. The learned Judgc atier taking into consideration 01' the eaming capacity of the petitioner only awarded maintcnance.

¶37

The point that arises for consideration is. rvhether the impugned order su1'fers fl'om inrrrrnities and ,eeds inter.l'erencc o1' this Court?

¶38

There is no dispute about the relationship between the pafties. Respondent No. I is unable to maintain herself and her daughter, fired above maintenance case before the XVI Additionar District and Sessions Judge at Nralkajgiri to award mainrenance from the petitioner. The petitioner was rvorking as software Engineer ln a corporate offlce at Madhapur and drawing Rs.40,000/_ to Rs.45,000/per month and he deliber.ately neglected the respondents and failed t o provide nraintenance to ihem.

¶39

0^ A per.usal ol the lnrpugned ordel disc1oses that the contenttons rarsed by the wife have been

¶40

con.s rderecl and af ier

¶41

¶42

¶43

taking into considerarion ol rnonthly earnings of husband only, interim maintenance was awarded to respondent Nos. I and 2.

¶44

A perusal of salary certificate of the petitioner from the month of March, 2017 to May, 201 7 shows that he was getting net salary of Rs.26,000i- r0 Rs.27,000/_.

¶45

Keeping in view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lost his employment and not earning and even after taking irrto consideration of salary slips of the year 2017 his income was not at Rs.40 to 45, 000/-^{per month} as contended by lealned^{coullsel 1br respondentNo'l and 2'} as such, awarding^{interimtlaintenanceof Rs l0'000/-per month} each i.e. total^{Rs.20,000/- appcalsto be on higher side'}

¶46

1 1. Having^{regard to the circumstances stated above' it is} considered^{thatthe endsof justice wouldbe met if the petitioner is} directed^{to pay lnaintenanceto rcspondentNos'land 2 at the rate} of Rs.l0,000/-^{per month to respondent No'l and Rs'5'0001 per} month^{to resPondentNo'2'}

¶47

12.^{Accordingly' the irnpugnedorder dated 01'07'2019passed} 1by^{the learneclXVI Additional District and SessionsJudge' Ranga}

¶48

¶49

2',
\t '(
V

¶50

Reddy^{District at Maikajgiri in CrlMP'No'159 of 20i8 in} M.C.No.6^{of 2018 is modifiedas ttnder:}

¶51

The^{petitioner shali pay interim maintenance ol Rs 10'000/-} per month^{to respondent No'l and Rs'5'000/- to respondentNo 2} i.e. Rs.15,000/-^{in total irom the date of order in Crl'MP'No'159of} 2018 i.e.^{from 01.07'2019}

¶52

Accordingly,^{theCriminal RevisionCase is}

¶53

disposed of. Pending^{miscellaneouspetitions,if any, stand closed'}

¶54

¶55

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOrNT RFGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// . .lr SECTION OFFICER

¶56

To,

¶57

¶58

The XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri

¶59

The Judge , Family Court , Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶60

One CC to Sri N//s P VINAYAKASWAIMY and PVVB RAJESWART Advocate (oPuc)

¶61

One CC to SRl. c PAVANA MURTHY Advocate IOPUCI

¶62

Two CD Copies

¶63

One spare copy

HIGH^COURT

DATED:2210612022

$lArE Or
f)
fu {{),'l
f.) tt I\I\ 3
L)
x
+< n ,

¶68

ORDER

¶69

CRLRC.No.819^{of 2019}

¶70

DISPOSING^{OF THE CRL.R.C}

¶71

)
s.r0
*!As
s/#

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy v. Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panja V.S.K. Harsa Murthy v. Smt. P. Lakshmi and 2 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

Shiva Kumar Vs a.Pradeep Kumar

M/S J.R. Exim India, Hyd and Anr. Vs State, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Abdul Muqeed, Hyderabad., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Smt. G. Kausalya , Laxmi Vs G. Anji Reddy, and Another

Vayugundla Ramesh Vs the State of Ap., Rep Byits P.P and Anothrs

Kakarla Geetha Rani Vs State of Telangana and Another