Dismissed

Shaik Rehman v. Smt, Rizwana Begum and Another

Telangana HC21 Nov 2023CRLP/11257/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Telangana High Court dismissed the applicant's plea to quash a maintenance order. The court upheld the lower appellate decision, finding the awarded amount meager compared to the cost of living and rejecting the claim that it was excessive.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking quashing of the maintenance order is dismissed.

Shaik Rehman Vs Smt, Rizwana Begum and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[ 32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . ATHYDERABAD r$:, o.r 0,r I .1^{,$#, ,, 'P,} TUES DAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER r! TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT )

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL II: CRIMINAL PETITION No:'11257 of 20'15

¶5

Between:

¶6

Shaik Rehman, S/o. late Abdul ,Kareem, Aged 48^years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. 20-5-549/1, Shakker Gunj, Syedali Chabutra, Hyderabad.

¶7

lt ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND. ,. tr 1. Smt. Rizwaha ; ,,,, Begum,l ;i, Ex-wifeL of Shaik Rehman, Aged 25 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 19-1-436/A/5, Osman Bagh, Kamatipura, Hyderabad. 1-'i r2l-(The. State bf ;Telangana, ref,. Oy. itsiPublic Prosecutor, High Court of i^{, Judicatureat HyderabadFor the State'of Telangana and the State of Andhra} pradesh. r I I ...Respondents/Respondents I

¶8

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 110-10-2014 in M.C. No.13 of 2012 on the file of Xlll Additional rChief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as confirmd in Crl.R.P. No.399 of 20'14 dated 28-8-2015 on the file of the ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, in the interest of Justice.

¶9

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'ts(CRLPMP. NO: 11348 OF 201s)

¶10

Petition under Section +aZ o1 Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum.of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.C. No.13 of 2012 on the file of Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the quashing petition before this Hon'blejHigh Court.

1 I
I
I
i

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017

Between:

Smt. Rizwana Begum, Ex-wife of Shaik Rehman, Aged 25 years, Occ Housewife, R/o. 19-1-436/fuS, Osman Bagh, Kamatipura, Hyderabad.

¶16

...Petitioner/Respondent No. 1

¶17

AND

¶18

,1 Shaik Rehman, S/o. late Abdul Kareem, Aged 48 years, Occ: Government Employee, Rlo. 20-5-549/1, Shakker Gunj, Syedali Chabutra, Hyderabad.

¶19

¶20

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra

¶21

$+ⁱ $jii"&iii L .,, } :$ti$; ffi:*:::::

¶22

ti i^{stated in the Memorandumof Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} ':! ! be^{pleasedto vacate the interim stayin Crl.P No. 1 '1257of 2015 dated30-11-} 'i^'20t5- i

¶23

i l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017 t

¶24

i Petition under Section 482 of ttI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Hon'ble Xlll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad to issue a Cheque for I Rs, 200,0001 along with interest accrued thereon in favour of the R1 during the^pendency of the above^{quash petition.}

¶25

i l This Petition comtng on for hearing,l upon perusing lhe Memorandum of

¶26

I CrbriOs of Crimin'al Petition and up6n hearing the arguments of Ms. KIRANMAI,

¶27

,l Advocate representing Sri C. S HARAN REDDY,^,Advocate for the Petitioner and

¶28

$ ihe Mr. vlzRRATri ALt,rAssista nt PJblic Pr6secutor on behalf of the Respondent ilo.2'and of Sri RdHANA KHANRM, Aovocate for'the Respondent No.1 . *, lh l+ tr,r I^l;r'1"'ti i

¶29

Court made thetltt following: oRDER t-ir : ',!

¶30

| IIl)

¶31

J It, Il,:, t'lit, i

¶32

t' -

¶33

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶34

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11257 of 2015

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The present Criminal Petition is fiied seeking to quash the proceedings dated 10.10.2014 in M.C.No. 13 of 2Ol2 on the file of learned XIII Additional Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2Ol4 dated 28.08.2015 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶37

Heard Ms.Kiranmai, Advocate, representing Sri.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Rehana Khanam, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr.Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2-State. Perused the record.

¶38

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 took place on Oa.l2.2OO3 at Hyderabad in accordance with Muslim Lau,. The petitioner is an employee of BSNL and respondent No.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is having

¶39

¶40

eight children through his first wife and two (2) children through respondent No. l. On account of the disputes that cropped up between the couple, the petitioner divorced respondent No. 1 on 13.07.2OO9 b-v depositing Mehar and Iddat amor-rnt. Respondent No.1 filed a criminal case against the petitioner vide C.C.No.4O of 2011 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, H1'derabad, for the offences punishabie under Section 498-A IPC and the said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, D.V.C.No.39 of 2O1O on the file of I Metropolitan Magistrate, H1'derabad, was filed by respondent No. 1 , seeking relief under the provisions of Protection ol Women from Domestic violence Act,2OO5, wherein vide order dt.17.06.2011, the petitioner herein was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month to respondent No.1 till she remarries and @^{Rs.1,000/-per month each to the two children, thus} totalling to Rs.3,500/- per month towarcls their maintenance. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed M.C.No.13 of 2Ol2 on the lile of iearned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the said Court vide its order dated 10. iO.2O 14 awarded a sum of

¶41

-7

¶42

¶43

Rs.3,00,000/ to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,00,000/- to two children. Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.10.20 14, u,hile the petitioner preferred Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2O14, respondent No.1 preferred Crl.R.P.No.425 of 2Ol4 on the file ol II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on consideration of the evidence on record, the lor.l,er appellate Court dismissed both the Criminal Revision Petitions vide common judgment dated 28.08.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Petition to quash the proceedings dated 10.10.2014 in M.C.No.l3 of 2Ol2 on the lile of learned XIII Additiona-l Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2Ol4 dated 28.08.2015 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lower appellate Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions vide common judgment dated

¶45

28.O4.2O 15 without applying its mind, it ought to have

¶46

._--I

¶47

¶48

allowed the revision petitions after considering the evidence on record in proper prospective. She further contended that petitioner is getting a meager income and directing him to pay a total sum of Rs.S lakhs towards fair and better provision, regardless of his obligations, is excessive and beyond his capacity. Therefore, learned. counsel submits that the impugned^judgment passed b_r, the trial Court as confirmed by the lou,er appellate Court is untenable and hence, seeks to quash the same.

¶49

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court, after careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, rightly passed the respective orders and interference of this Court, at this stage, is unwarranted. Therefore, the learned Assistarrt Public Prosecutor seeks to dismiss the present criminal petition.

¶50

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned appellate court rightly dismissed the Crl.R.P.No.399 of 2014 vide judgment dated

¶51

¶52

28.08.2015 upholding the order dated 10.10.2014 in M.C.No.73 of 2012 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned lower appellate court as the fair provision awarded by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is very meager when compared to the present cost of living. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for relief sought for in this Criminal Petition.

¶53

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶54

closed.

¶55

closed. S D/.V.KAVITH A
I
ASSISTAN T REGISTRA R
I
j 'rj /iTRUE COPY// .,c
i. -.: ir, SECTION OFFICER
r r r ' i . ,.,,, * l.r t' ^- t
To,
1 rne'xilt AoditiondI i,lStropot ,r[ t/ agl dtratelNdmP ally; Hyderabad.
2 .{fwo" CCs tolthe Public Pros ec0tor,'Hi$ h'Court n for the State of Telangana at
Hvderabad.(OUT) f. t t
i. Oie CC to SRI C. SHARAN RED DY, Advocate [oPUC]
-4. One CC to SRI REHANA KHANAM, Advocate [OPUC]
kam
YY
I
t
I
!
i
I

¶56

d
I!
I
Y
t
I
I
I ri
HIGH COURT l J.
I:
DATED:Z1t11 12023
:
t )rl
'(7
illu t 5 tLu NII .\C ;l
.li l:rl <br>r Il ; i q
; r:1 ili tr i t
+ ? +
'i T
t;
.'1 lI ii :. i :
{ -t1!- ORDE. R:
t., I
CRLP. No.1 1 f 2015
_l
!
^; I
I
'r
!
{ ',
E
I
cRt I
a;
ffi+
aL .ti-,.
'-. i' b
I
k
-l
{

Shaik Rehman v. Smt, Rizwana Begum and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Rehman v. Smt, Rizwana Begum and Another

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

Smt.Peruvala Shobha , Shobha Rani, Hyd., Vs Peruvala Niranjan Reddy, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Mir Ashwaq Ali Khan, Hyderabad and 4 Others Vs P.P., State of Telangana, Hyderabad and Anr.

M/s. Sai Bhanu Rice Mills Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Madikonda Bhujanga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

T. Mohan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. Usha Agarwal Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another