Dismissed

Smt. Padma, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Aug 2023CRLP/15221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging orders that denied maintenance. The court held the petitioner failed to prove her legal marriage to the husband due to lack of documents and preceds, and thus no obligation to pay maintenance existed. The dismissal of the petition as there was no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; interlocutory applications pending before the lower courts also dismissed.

Smt. Padma, Vs State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 15221 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Padma, Wo N.Narsaiah, Occ Household, R/o H.No 3-12714, Dharpally (V), Mandal Nizamabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad 2. N. Narsaiah, S/o. Pichaiah, Occ Village Secretary at (Grampanchayath) Jukal, Fl/o H.No. MIG-I (40) 1-1-11292 APHB New Colony, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad

¶12

...RESP.NDENi.

¶13

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- 04-01-2014 on passed in Crl RP No. 30 of 201 3 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, At Nizamabad in M.C.No.7/2007 dated 25.02.201 3

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 16192 OF2014

¶15

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 set aside the Order dated'.25-02-2013 passed in M.C. No. 7 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri MIRZA NISAR AHMED BAIG, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No1

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I'HE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V !'ENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITI oN NO.1522 I Or' 2014

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

'I.his , r nrinal I)etiticn is filed undel Sec .ir:n .182 of Criminal Pr-ocedrtrr'( rr:e (for short 'Cr.P.C.J by the petition..r seeking to quash rhc orcicr d t,: rl O4.Ct 1.2O1.4 passed in Crl.R.l,.No 30 of 2013 by the Ica nred I A cliti,rnal Sessions Judge, Nizarrabra I whcrein the order <la t cd 12.5. Ci ,li) 13 J-.assed in M.C.No.7 oI 2OO7 by the learnr:d I Adrlitiorrirl J tr: ic al Magistrate of First Class, Ni;;a.na tad rejecting to grant mirilt t( )i noe ro the petitroDer herein b1 the 1l,r r.e spondent herein r.r'a s con firrnr I

¶21

2I r:rinl Sri Mirza Nisar Atrmecl Baig, lez r rr.cl counsel lbr the p.rlrtion('r 1r I S:-r VizaraLh Ali, learned Assisti:r t. public prosecutor rcprcSelitlrr{l I':rrrred Pubti<: Prosecutor for Stare, re:iponclent No.l. Nor-rc ap Dt.l, rr i lbr tl.rc respondr:nt No.2/unoff cial r:s;porrden(.

¶22

t- rl rnain qlounds urgcd by the lte.tir ont.r/rvile seeking maintenirrtle rrm thr' 2,',1 respondent are thar_ afler ,lcnrise oi her first hrrsband, shr Ir rarrir:d Lhe 2,,d respondent, who cli rort:ecl his flrst wife anti rvas; rvr: krn;1 in MRO (lffice, Dharprzrlly e n,l rhat she paid Rsr.b0,OOt)^/ :r tre 2.d respondent for prrrcha.sir;Fl louse bearing .lik-*[ 2157 Ii. .r r,relrsur ing 840 Sq.yarcls, situar:erl b,:lLind Brahrnarngari Ternple;=rt [)1'r r'1r:ill,,, \rilizrge ar,ci lailcd to trarr;fer tltr prrpcrty it:to the

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

namc of petitioner against his^{promisc made v/hile obtailling} Rs.6O,O00/- and that she further^{paid Rs.40,O0O/-to her husbandon} the premise to reinstate his^job in^{pursuanceof his suspension on the} allegation of corruption and that^{the 2na respondentmarried another} woman and deserted the^{petitioner and necl<edout her and paid deat} ear to the decision of the elders to^{registerthe property in her name} and to repay the amount of^{Rs.4O,O00/-even after issuance of} promissory notes and refused to^{pay mairrtenance and also to accept} the petitioner.

¶25

The 2na respondent refi.rsed to^{pay maintenance to thc} pctitioner herein mainly contcnding^{that he did not marry the petitioner} and that on one occasion he^{availedhand loan of Rs.20,O00/- from the} petitioner duly executing^{promissorynote} for^{the said amount and} repaid the same on 05.01.2007^{throughchcque bearingNo.430032} pertaining to his wife Srilatha's account^{but the petitionerherein} without returning back the said^{promissory note demaldedthe 2"d} respondent again to^pay the said^{Rs.20,000/- with 607o interestper} annum to which lhe 2ad respondent^{refusedand hence, having bore} grudge, with an ill-intention to extract^{huge sums from him, the} petitioner filed false case.

¶26

¶27

Page 3 ol 5

¶28

In srrpport of her case the petitio:rer grrr- exiLmined herself as PW1 and rr ir'd upon the doc:umentary evicience i., _ Exs.P1 and P2. Thc 2,rd re:;p ndent apart liom examining himl,r:lf iLs RW1, also examined R\Vr .l and 3 and relied upon the d,)cunt,Intitry evidence i.e. Exs.Rl to R ll! Ugron pr:rusal ol the above ref lrre(l r:,'idc t1ce, learned I AdditionaL ,Jr lr:izLl Magistrate for First tllass Niz;amabad has dismissed M C ,r.i' of 2007 holding that the pc titroner- herein is not the Iegally wr:ddcr 'vi1e^{of 2"d respondentherein anrl thzit he has no} obliga tion to nr Lirrtain her.

¶29

Acl nittt:dly, exccpl Lhe oral testimon]' c. lrw [, there is no doc umentan r ' .)rill evidencc adduced by the pr:titir,,rcr to prove her marriage rvith lrc' 2"d respondent. Though tre petiliorer contended that her rnarr: g, : ',vith the 2,d respondent wa s per [c, rmr:d in Maddul Narshirnhir Srr rrrv Templc situilted at Dharpallv i r r,ht: presence of friends and ,,/c rvis;hers, she lailed to examine all,/ )nc cf them or file any ceruificeLte s,;ued by thc said temple authoriti( s for the reasons best knou,t to l r:r',^,arhich will raise adversc inference allair.rst her under Sc-ction 114(g) rf^'I'he Inclian Evidence Act, 1872 l:apzrcitating the mairr edii-tr:c,rl ii r case. On tlie other hand, the i,, respondent. by examiniirg Rt//s ) arrd 3, u'ho arr: the MPDO anl 'I'zLh s, idar respectively o[ Dh.rrpal[y ;rr I b1 prodr-rcing Exs.RlO to R13 i.c. r(..ivant portion of pe nsion ID No. ?:i739, ratjon c:ard serial numb,lr, its lristory fbnn etc.,

¶30

i;.,^4

¶31

Page 4 of 5

¶32

pertaining to the petitioner, could able to prove the single status of the petitioner a,d her availing widow pension scheme from the Govemment till December, 2ol2 i.e. even after 12 years from the alleged date of her marriage rvith 2"d responde,t. He also proved his marriage with one Srilatha by producing Exs.RS and R6 certihcates., When the relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent as legally wedded wife and husband itself is not established, question of paying maintenance to the petitioner d.oes not arise. I, that ui.* of th. matter, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad has rightly dismissed the appeai hled by the petitioner conhrming the findings of learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fir.st Class, Nizamabad.

¶33

The main ground urged in this petition by the petitioner secking to quash the impugned orcier is that she was not afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence before the triai court and her evidence was closed in haste manner. Howevcr, it is a fact borne out of the record that petitioner u,as given ample opportunity to adduce evidence as the MC was filed on o3.02.2007 and she was examined as PW I on O4.I2.2OO9 and was cross-examined on 07.01 .2010 and her evidcnce was closed on 07.05.2010 and later on or.o2.2ol3evidence of PWl was reopened for further examination. Therefore, it clearly shows that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce

¶34

Page 5 ol 5

¶35

evidence but s t,. did not avail thc same. Acco^-dingly thc contention of thc petitir>ner r this reglrrd is nr:gtrtived

¶36

Iri^,, ie,,r, of the above discussiorL, tlLis Court is of the considered vir v that the Courts below have righrl1, a1;preciated the mzrterial zLvaile >l : on record and the said findings ci1-rr ot be interfered.

¶37

ln hr: resr.rlt this Criminal Petil:i>r: is dismissed.

¶38

Interlocutor' a rl lic:ations, if any pr:nding, shall alsc, ttrrnc dismissed

¶39

¶40

Sd/.P.PA f^/AIJABHA REDDY ASS;I S I.AI\T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII (u)/ S =C'TION OFFICER

¶41

The 1't Additio al Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad. 2. Two CCs to lh, Fublic Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta:e^{of ]-elangana at} Hyderabad (Ol Tt

¶42

One CC to Sri 4ir.za Nisar Ahmed Baig, Advocate [OPUC ] 4. Two CD Copie

HIGH COURT

DATED:08/08/2023

ORDER

CRLP.No.15221 of^'. X" 4

¶48

1
,4, 'c,
I <' i<br>i.;
)-l: 11 t Allll iilS

¶49

CRL.P. IS DISMISSE )

¶50

C
7 lrl/'4

Smt. Padma, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padma, 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

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., Vs Sajida Kauser, Hyd and 4 Otrs, Rep Pp.

P.Venkat Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Mohd.Jahangir Ali, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano

Vaka Vasudeva Rao, Hyd., Vs K.Srinivasa Rao, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

J.Srinivas Vs J.Sridevi

Kanakaraboina Laxmaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.