Partly allowed

M.J.Hameema v. M.John Peter and another

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023CRLRC/1092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to enhance the monthly maintenance amount from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 7500/- payable by the retired respondent to the revision petitioner, considering her residential needs and the respondent's pension. The order was partly allowed, directing payment with existing terms.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to pay Rs. 7500/- per month as monthly maintenance in addition to residential accommodation provided, subject to terms of the order dated 30.11.2015.

M.J.Hameema Vs M.John Peter and another — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIRST^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOIJSAND^{ANDTWENWTHREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAI',JI}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE O: 1092 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case^{under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr'P'C' againstthe} Judgment dated 26.04.2017^{made in crl.R.P.No.8 of 2016 on the file of the court} of the Judge, Family^{Court-cum-Vl Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam'} Preferred^-againstt-he order^{passed in Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2014in M C No 21 of} t 999 dated 30.1¹ .201 5 0n^{the file of the court of the I Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First Class at^Khammam'

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.J.Hameema, occ.housewife,^{Rl/o.H.No.99/99/357,Hydershakota'Madhurinagar,} H,derabad'

¶10

...PETtrtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . M.John Peter. occ.private^{employee, C/o.R/o.Pastor M.Jacob John, Zion Hall} Water Tank Road,^{Khammam Town, Khammam District, TS.'}

¶13

The State of^{Telangana,throughPublicProsecutor, high Court, Hyderabad'}

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: 3 OF 2018

Between:

M.John Peter, occ.private^{employee, C/o.Rl/o.Pastor M.Jacob John,Zion HallWater} Tank Road, Khammam^{Town, Khammam District' TS.,}

¶18

...PETITIONER/1 ST RESPONDENT

¶19

AND

¶20

M.J.Hameema, occ.housewife,^{Ryo.H'No.99/99/357,Hydershakota'} Madhurinagar,^HYderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶22

The State of^{Telangana, through Public Prosecutor, high Court, Hyderabad.}

¶23

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶24

¶25

-r:---

¶26

Petitio r under Section 482 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit liled in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to} vacate the stiry order^granted in lA.No.^{1 of 2018 in Crl.Rc.no. 1092 of 2018 dated} 19-04-2018.

¶27

Counsel for lhe Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVASA^{MURTHYCHEEDELLA}

¶28

Counsel for lhe Respondent No.1 :^M/s. VANI^{SREE REP. FOR} DT CHALLA^-SRINIVASA REDDY

¶29

Counsel forlhe Respondent No.2: PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶30

The Court milde the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI} CRIM AL REVISTON CASE No.1092 oF²⁰¹⁸

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

I have heard Mr.Srinivasa Murthy^{Cheedella learned} counsel for the revision Petitioner^{and Ms.Vanisree,learned} counsel for respondent No.1.

¶34

The revision case is^{Frled assailing the orderdated} 26.04.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.8^{of 2016 on the file of the} Judge, Familv Court-cum-VI Additional^Sessions Judge,^Khammam. 3.(i). Thc re vision peritioner^{as petitioner filed Maintenance} Case vide trt.(1.r.*\o.21 of^{1999 along with her childrenwherein} vide <,rclcr clated 2i.()5.2()00,^{maintenance of Rs. 400/- per} month t<r thc rcvision pctitioncr^{and Rs.300/ - per montheach} to her childrcn^u'as au'ardccl

¶35

(ii) Srrbseclue ntlv, ln 2() I4, dre revision petitioner^filed an applicrtion unrler section^{121 ofthe Code ofCriminal} Proccclurc, 1973^{(fbr short 'the Cr.P-C.) for enhancemento[} maintcrr:rncc amoun t to^{Rs.1 5000/-} Per^{month.Learned}

¶36

¶37

Crt.R.C. No. t092_2018 NTR,J

¶38

Magistrate vide order dated 30.11.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2074 1>artly allowed the petition and awarded Rs.8000/- per month on or before 10,h o[ every succeeding month rii)^' Aggrieved by the order, respondent No.l(hereinafter 'the respon(lent) preferred revision vide Crl.R.P.No.8 of 2016. The revisiorral Court vide order datcd 26.04.2017 having regard to the aspects that the revision petitioner is residing in the house of the responclent and retirement oI the respondent on superannuation, limited the monthly malntenancc zmount to Rs.2000,/- per

¶39

month. Ihus, the revision pcrition.

¶40

Lr:arned counsel for the revision pctiti()ner would submit that the revisional Court failccl to consider tbc aspects of cost of living ard the admission of thc rcspondcnt, as to pcnsion of Rs. 23,050 / - per month. Pcr contra, the rcvision petitioner is residing in the house of he r mothcr-in-larv in lilramnram, though for medical treatment she is comrnutin.q bcnvccn [{-i'derabad and Khammz:m. Thus, shc has lrccn pror.'idccl rvith thc rcsidentia] accommodation. Hou' so cvcr, thc amounr of Rs.2(X)()/- is very

¶41

¶42

Crl-R.C. No.l092_201E NTR,J

¶43

meager to live on,^{hence, Iesseningthe maintenance amountis} without reason, as such, Prayed^{for intervention.}

¶44

karned counsel for the^{resPondent pleadedin favour of} the impugned order^{and submitsthat the resPondent has retired} from service and is suffering^{with old age ailmentsaod the} amounts receir.ed as pcnsion^{are beingexpendedfor his} maintenance and medical^{exPenses. Further, the revision} petitioner is receiving suPP()rt^{from their children. Nonetheless,} as per the interim direction^{o[ this Court,he is payingRs.5,000/-} per month to thc^rcvision Pctiti()ncr^{and fairly submits that he is} ready to continue tlre^{pa1'mcnt o[ rh:it amount. Thus,} Prayed^for considering thc nt,tttcr^{(,n nlcrils.}

¶45

I have carcfirlll' considcrcd^{thc submissions made by the}

¶46

learned counscl ancl pcrused^{thc matcrial on record.}

¶47

At tlre outset, the basic^{iactsas to the reladonship beween} the revision pctiti()ner^{ancl respon<lent No.1, their separateliving} and thc cntltlcrncnt^{of rcvision petitioncrFor maintenanceand} Iiabiliry of thc^{rcsponclcntarc not in clisPllte.In enhancement}

¶48

¶49

Crl.R.C. No. t 092_2018 NTR..I

¶50

petition, though Rs.15,000/- was sought, the learned Magistrate had granted Rs.8,000/-.

¶51

..n this regard, admittedly respondent was a pump mecha ric, office of Mandal Praja Parishad and by the date o[ petitiorr, he was earning Rs.47412/- as net salary. It is admitted fact that by the date of revision, respondent lvas rerired and receivirg Rs.23,050/- as pension per monrh. Irurther, the revisior, petitioner is residing in the house of mother of responclent No.1 .

¶52

Though it is pleaded that thcir childrcn arc c:rrning and supporting the revision petitioner, no substanriating material has been ple ced on record.

¶53

In the above noted set oI circumsrrnccs and rhe admittec ly monthly earnings of the te spondcnt, ancl thc scttlcd proposition that the award of mainrenancc shalt bc in tandem with the living standard of the pcrsou u.ho is liatrle r( ) pa. maintenance and the probable ncccssitics lor drgnifrecl living at the age c f revision petitioner, arvarcling lts.2,(XXl/- pcr rn()nrh is

¶54

¶55

Crl.R.C No.tO92_2018 NTR.J

¶56

I I

¶57

certainly on lesser sidc. As the shelter has been provided, reducing the maintenancc amount to somc extent is allowable. However slashing the amount to bear minimum would be unreasonable. In this position, having regard to the inmme of the respondent and reported readiness to pay the maintenance amount as ordered during pendency of this rcvision, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting Rs.7500/- per month as monthly maintenance in adclition to the residential accommodation already provided by the respondent would meet the ends of justice

¶58

1,7. Accordingly, this rcvision case is allowed in part and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.7500/ towards monthly maintenance, subject to the other tcrms of the order dated 30.11.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.898 of 2014.

¶59

As a sequel, the pcnding miscellaneor.rs petitions, i[ any,

¶60

stands closed.

¶61

SO/-M.MANJULA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

to'',. ,n" Judge' Family Court-cum-vl Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam

¶66

(with records if any)

¶67

,. il; i'il;itt.nat 'luticiat^{Masistrateat First class' Khammam}

¶68

Two^{CCs to the Public br'oli"'itt' i'gn Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} HYderabad[OUT]

¶69

One CC lo^{Sri SrrnrvasaMu(hy Cheedella' Advocate [OPUC]} ;. il;a io sri^{or. challa SrinivasaReddy' Advocate{oPUCl}

¶70

Two CD^CoPies

BGV/PIP iftra

HIGH COURT

DATED "0110912023

ORDER

CRLRC,No.l092 of 2018

¶76

tHE STa 14:
q
o(
oo 2 3 Ft8 2024
'J,,
'/
1,./
:,',1 ... , , ,- . .a/'

¶77

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRL.RC.

¶78

1.<br>b 4'\ {

M.J.Hameema v. M.John Peter and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Hameema v. M.John Peter 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. B. Soujanya Vs B. Shashi Kiran

Ek Dileep Singh Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt. Nazmeen sultana, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Rachana Pet Vs The State of Telangana

Subrahmanyam K.B.M.V. Vs the State Oftelangana

T. Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Telangana