High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an appellate order that reduced compensation in a domestic violence case. The petitioner argued against maintenance for the wife, who is employed, citing her voluntary separation.
Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; liberty granted to parties to work out remedies under law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32e91
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OFDECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1993 OF2018
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections397 & 4O7 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment dated 28.03.2018 madein Cd.A.No.12 ot 2016 on the file of the Courtof the Principal Sessions Judge, Warangalpreferred against the Orderpassedin DVC No. 17 of 2010 dated 09.12.2015 on thefile ofthe Court of the lstAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
Between:
Allurr Prasanna Kumar, S/o. LateBshaiah,Age:39 years, OccSub lnspector in Communication Department, Hyderabad,R/o.H.No 16-11-782,Chintal, Warangal.
...Petitioner/AppellanURespondent
AND
...RespondenU RespondenUPetitioner
l.A NO: I OF 2018
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support ofthe petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay the execution of the order dated09. 12.2015in DVC.No.17 of 2O'lO which was modified in Crl.AppealNo. 12 of 2016 in so far it relatesto payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and confirmedin so far it relates patment of Rs.3,000/- per month towards house rent andRs.10,000/-towards maintenance to the 2nd respondentvide Judgment dated 28032018in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016 on thefile ofthe court of Principal SessionsJudge, Warangal, pending disposal of the above Crl.RevisionCase.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Prabhakar Rao
Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri T. Chandra Shekar
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE No.1993 of 2Ol8
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filedunder Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016passedby the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal (for shortthe 'appellate Court) by modifying the order dated09.12.2015 in D.V.C.No.l7 of 2OlO passed by the learned IAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal(for short'the tria.l Court').
2
petitioner has requested her that he will inform the same to them after some period and that subsequently shr: conlinued her studies at Hyderabad and the petitioner was working at Adilabad as a Sub-Inspector in the Communication Department and they used to meet occasionally.
3 . On O 1 .06 .2OO7 , the petitioner was transl erred from Adilabad to Hyderabad and since respondent No.2 has also completed her studies, both of them startecl living at Hyderabad and the parents and relatives of thr: petitioner used to visit them very often and used to pic,k-up petty issues and used to raise allegations against her thus provocating the petitioner into anger and slowly the relationship bet'"r.een the petitioner and respondent No.2 got strained and at one instance, respondent No.2 rvent to her parents house and stayed there for about three rnonths arrd she worked as a Lecturer at SVIT Engineering College at Secunderabad, one day she fell unconscious at the College and immediately, the College Authorities inforrned to the petitioner and a-fter her recovery, she went with the petitioner to Hyderabad and there the petitioner harassed her both
,
mentally and physically for three months for want of salary from her. The petitioner a-lso alleged illicit intimacy on her.
4
protection order prohibiting respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in D.V.C from interfering with respondent No.2 day-to-d ay life and also directed the petitioner to take responden[ No.2 and provide separate residence and also to pe,_y monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/-.
7 . Heard learned counsel for the petitionr_'r, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 ald learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the r-espondentState and perused the record.
5
company of the petitioner voluntarily and respondent No.2 is a highly qualified woman ald working as a Lecturer in SVIT Engineering College, Secunderabad as such, respondent No.2 is earning handsome amount which is sufflcient to maintain herself, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Hence, seeks to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside the order passed by the learned appellate Court in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016
"i )
6
appea-ring for respondent-State and upon per-using the material available on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by ttre Court below.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if anv, shall also
stand closed.
Sd/. M. RAMANAKRISHNA DEPUI Y REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// /Lr*-
SECTIdN OFFICER
To,
1 The Princioal Sessions Judqe,Warangal lwithrecords' if any) z ffre td nC'Citional Judicra!lViagistrateaf First Class \ Jarangal 5. One CC toSri A.Prabhakar Rao. Advocate tqPUC-l a. One CC to Sri T. ChandraShekar,Advocate [OPUCI d. i;; Cc;6 thepuoriC ProieCutor, High Court for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad.(OUT)
bgvinj b
"V
HIGH COURT
DATED:0511212023
a.' :t<br>>
. q irir', tli{ 7-
I
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1993 of 2018
DISMISSlNG THE CRLRC
:)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance should be granted to a respondent who is a working individual and left the petitioner voluntarily.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the lower appellate court in a domestic violence case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Alluri Prasanna Kumar
The State of Telangana
Alluri Sangeetha
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
