Dismissed

Vemula.Krishnamanoher v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jun 2022CRLRC/97/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition challenging a domestic violence maintenance order. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the petitioner is a professor with sufficient means, despite his claim of job loss, confirming the Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision case dismissed; the order dated 19.12.2017 confirming maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month is affirmed.

Vemula.Krishnamanoher Vs State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

rN rHE^{HIGH couRrfSIr-J*toB'#EoF TELANGANA}

¶3

FRIDAY .THE^{SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE} '^'i\i/b i;.iousnrlo nr'ro rwENrY^rwo

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE A'SANTHOSHREDDY} CRIM INAL^{REVIsloNCA SENO:s7 0F2018}

¶6

Crl.Revision^{Case Under Sections397 & 401 of Cr'P'C' againstthe order} dated^{19-12-2017 in Crl'A' No' 103 ol 2017on the file of the Court of the Hon'ble} Principal^{Sessions Judge' Karimnagarconfirmingthe order dated 17 -02-2017in} DVC^{No' 7 of 2O13on the file of the Court of the I Additional JudicialMagistrateof} the First^{Class,Huzurabad.}

¶7

Between: .." .'"r: Professor. R/o^{H ' No} '1 - nff:a;r^{r ;} H i[+ff ia'rl 9 " i];yl ffii1 iilil :lH^{ffi .t,f?:P'nh} "::ii'w Respondent^No'1

¶8

AND

¶9

State^{Of Telangana' Through Public Prosecutor' High t""^.":11"^::0":,}

¶10

Kothulanaduma^vtlti 'i**n+e.;nlruSl1p,1gnlfi3:#r}fiil:;,i:I'u'ft1:r:{ "'RESP.NDENT/^{Respondenu Petitioner}

¶11

lA NO:^{1 OF 2018}

¶12

Petiti^{onu nder secti on1 5 1 c P c ql'vi nq-tl"l} ll.tT.:'iifl",)';:T'^{;:lt;S l:} the affidavit^{filed rn supportof the petitionthe-nte '-'-th; i;of the Hon'ble} " i :#l: H.",'"1?^: ffi^{:x I' fi: ail!} {3! i' i:: ?ii . ; F n:niu "^{:i ",,:l : :,1} l,ffi ..: ":Y:'l^{t i':' nx" o:}'15' JJ i'?i'"} Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI K, VENUMADHAV}

¶13

Counsel^{for the RespondentNO'1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶14

Counsel^{for the ResPondent No'2: SRIL. HARISH}

¶15

Th.^{Court m'd3 tht tollowlng: OROIR}

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY CRL.R.C.No.97 OF 2018

¶17

JUDGMENT:

¶18

This criminal revision case is directed against the^judgment dated 19.12.2017 in Crl.A.No.lO3 of 2017, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said appeal filed by petitioner/husband herein was dismissed, confirming the order dated 17.02.2017 in D.V.C.No.01 of 2013, on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Huzurabad.

¶19

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶20

The second respondent herein is wife of the petitioner. She filed D.V.C.No.7 of 2013 against the petitioner, his parents, sister, brother, paternal uncle, and grandfather of petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for grant of monthly maintenance, return of an amount Rs.8 lakhs and gold ornaments presented by the parents of second respondent at the time of marriage. The respondents opposed the petition by filing counter. The second respondent/wife was examined as P.W.l and the petitioner/husband was examined as

¶21

R.W.l and his father as R.W.2.^{Afterdue enquiry, the leamed} Magistrate directed the^{petitionerto pay an amountof Rs.5,000i-} per month to the second respondent^{towardsmonthlymaintenance,} besides directing^{the petitioner not to commitany kind of domestic} violent against the second^{respondent.Aggrieved by the same,the} petitioner f,rled appeal in Crl.A.No.l03^{of 2017. Thelearned} Sessions Judge,^{on re-appreciationof the evidence on record, while} confirming the order^{passed by the leamedMagistrate,dismissed} the appeal.

¶22

The leamed counsel^{for the petitioner contendsthat the} second respondent^{herself left the company of the petitioner and} in spite of issuing^{legal notice,she has not joined the petitioner'} He further contends^{that the second respondent is a M'Tech',post} graduate and is sufficiently^{eaming for her living'The leamed} counsel prays for setting^{aside the order of the appellatecourt'}

¶23

On the other^{hand, learned counselfor the second respondent} contends that though^{the petitioneris havingsufficient means,he}

¶24

. neglected and refused to maintain her. The learned counsel further

¶25

¶26

contends that the second respondent was not permitted to cohabit with the petitioner and she was not even permitted to join the company of the petitioner and that she is rightly entitled to seek maintenance. The leamed counsel prays for dismissal of the revlslon.

¶27

Whether the impugned order passed by the appellate couft confirming the order passed by the trial court suffers from any illegality or inhrmity and needs interference?

¶28

The petitioner filed the present case challenging the judgment of the appellate court mainly on the ground that the trial court as well as the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence that the second respondent is a post graduate in M.Tech., and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and that the petitioner lost the employment due to the filing of criminal complaints against hirn.

¶29

The evidence of second responclent as P.W.1 reveals that her marriage with R.W. I was performed on 28.07.2012 at Suvama Function Hall, Penchikalpet Village, Elkathurthy. At the time of marriage an amount Rs.8 lakhs and 20 tolas gold, besides other

¶30

¶31

household articles^{werepresented by her parents'Later,the} petitioner and his family^{members started harassingher physically} and mentally for^{additional dowryof Rs.20 lakhs and was necked} her out from the house.^{Subsequently,she lodged a complaint} before police for^{the offences punishable under Sections498-4'} 506 IPC and^{Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act'} She further^{deposed in her evidence that petitioner (R'W'I )} possessed immoveable^{properties and getting an income of} Rs.50,000/-^{per month,besides Rs'80,000/- by working as} Professor and^{the petitionerneglectedto maintain her and that she} is unable to maintain^herself.

¶32

g. On the other^{hand,petitioner in his evidence as R'W'1 stated} that he did not^{possessesany immoveable properties leave alone} the rents of^{Rs.50,000/-per month and that earlierhe workedas} Assistant Professor^{in Maharashtra state and used to get a salary of} Rs.50,000/-^{per monthand that presentlyhe lost his employment} due to the filing^{of criminal complaintsagainst him' He deniedthe} suggestion that^{usedto get Rs.80,000/- monthas salaryby working} as Professor.

¶33

I /'

¶34

) )

¶35

A^{perusal of the order passed by the appellatecourt, on} re-appraisal of the^{evidenceon record, shows that the leamed} Principal Sessions^{Judge has rightly observedthat the petitioner} was working as Professor^{and that he has not produced any proof} to show that his services^{were terminated and so also he failedto} show that the^{second respondentcompletedher M'Tech and} eaming Rs.20,000/- by^{working and that the petitionerfailed to} give the name of the organization^{where she was working'}

¶36

The trial court^{as well as the appellate courthave rightly} come to the conclusion^{that the petitionerherein is having} sufficient means and^{that he neglected and refused to maintain the} second respondent and,^{accordingly, awarded an amountof} Rs.5,000i- per month,^{whichis not on the higherside'}

¶37

ln the circumstances^{and taking into considerationthat} petitioner herein is working^{as Professor and keeping the present} cost of living and status^{of the second respondentas wife of} Professor, the^grant of^{Rs.5,000/-per month towards maintenance} is very minimal and reasonable^{and also taking into consideration}

¶38

¶39

the basic needs and requirements of the second respondenl and in view of the ever increase in the cost of living, it is considered that the impugned order does not call for any interference.

¶40

1 3. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed. \4. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶41

¶42

Sd/. K. SRINIVAS^RAO, JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' @ SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Sessions^{Judge,Karimnagar} -. i. rn" t nOaitionat Judicial^{Ma{istrate of FiistClass, Huzurabad'} 3'TwoCCstoPublicProsecutor,HighCourtatHyderabadlortneStateol Telangana^(OUT) 4 onJ ct to^'sRt. k.^{veruuruaonAV,Advocate} [oPUc] 5 One CC to SRI^{L. HARISH,Advocate(OPUC)} 6 Two CD Copies d

¶43

HIGH^COURT

¶44

ASRJ

¶45

DATED:^{1 7 t0612022}

¶46

HE SIn
I
o
L)
7t J|t.IVn i;
..!,
e t;,/

¶47

ORDER

¶48

CRLRC.No.97^{of 2018}

¶49

RC
D ISMISSINO

¶50

Vemula.Krishnamanoher v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vemula.Krishnamanoher v. State of Telangana

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

Myneni Surendra, Usa., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth Vs Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

Tigura Sankar Reddy Vs the State, through Sho., and Another

T.G.K.Murthy Vs State of Telangana rep,pp

Basa Maheshwar and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by Its Pp and 2 Others

Ali Amshan, Barkas and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.