Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023CRLRC/2099/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision filed under CrPC Sections 397 and 401 challenging a domestic violence order. The court allowed the revision partly, holding that while no domestic violence was found, a proportionate reduction in the alternative accommodation award for the minor was justified as the maintenance was being paid.

What did the court decide?

The order is partly allowed; the alternative accommodation amount awarded to the minor son is modified to Rs. 7,500/-.

Subrahmanyam K.B.M.V. Vs the State Oftelangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2099 0F 2018

¶7

(Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the^judgment passed in DV.C.No.51/2013 dt.25.1.2017 on the file of the^lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, upheld in^{C rl. A.No.477 120'l 7 dt.'1 8.4.201 8 on} the file of V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{(MahilaCourt) at Hyderabad)}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Subrahmanyam K.B.M.V., S/o. Late K.Rama^Rao, Occ:^Tectnical .ManagerAutomatics,- Rl/o PBS Advaitha Arcade, Bagh^{Ameri. Ramalayam Road,Kukatpally'} Hyderabad-500072.

¶10

...RespondenUAppellanUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public^{Prosecutor,High} 9ou1^qf Judicature, for the Slate of Telangana And the^{State of Andhra Pradesh,} Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Mrs.P.R. Kousalya, W/O. K.B.M.V.Subrahmanyam,^{Kousalya.1t49si"} Academy, Plot No:1152, Flat No.102.^{Ayyappa Society, The Gate Way, Near} welfare dociety ofiice, Madhapur, Hyderabad-50008^1.

¶14

...Petitioners/RespondenURespondents

¶15

lA NO: I OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ol CI.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court may be} pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in^pursuant to^{the judgment} passed in DVC.No.51/2013 d1.25.1 .2017 on the file of lll^{MetropolitanMagistrate,} Hyderabad upheld in Crl.A.No.47712017^{d1.18.4.2018 on the file ofV} Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{(Mahila Court) at Hyderabad pending disposal} of the above Crl.R.C.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Balla^{Ravindranath,Advocate}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^No.1 : Public^Prosecutor

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri^{L.Venkateswhwar Rao, Advocate}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 :} PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶22

-7

¶23

THE HONOURABTF SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 99 0F 2018

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Giminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 ail 401 of Code of Giminal Procedure, 1923 (for shon "G.P.C) assailing the judgment dated 18.04.2018 in Crl.ANo.aZZ of 2Ol7 passed by the V Additional Nletropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad, vfiere bythe order dared 25.01.2017 in DVCNo.51 of 2013 passed bythe III Metropolitan IUagistrate,, Hyderabad, has been confirmed.

¶26

The brief facr of the case are thar:

¶27

The Respondenr No.2 filed domestic incident repon (DIR) and the pedrion under Section 12 of Protection of^\Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for shon "the P\X/DV Acr") contending domesric violence at the hands of rhe revision petitioner and soughr for relief of maintenance, residence order and ctstody of their minor son. The }vlagistrate after due enquiry had concluded rhat the materials placed by respondenr No.2 arc lilling shon in making our dornesdc violence. Funher, by

¶28

¶29

NTR.J crlrc 2099 2018

¶30

observing that respondent No.2 is in a position to maintain herself dismissed her claim for maintenance, however, granted custody of the minor and for mainrenance of the minor child awarded Rs.10,000/- and grated RS.15,OOO/- rowards residential accommodadon. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner preferred Crl.ANo.4zz of 2or7 on the file of the v Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Coun), Hflerabad. The appellate C-oun after reconsideration of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment, thus this revision case.

¶31

karned cotuuel for the revision peririoner would contend thar the trial C-ourt in is order dated 25.01.2012 had rightly considered the facts and evidence in concluding that there is no domestic violence as contended by respondent No.2. On such conclusion, granting any relief under p!flDV Act, would be improper. Thus, the order of the trial Coun to pay maintenance of fu.10,000/- and RS.15,OOO/_ towards altemative

¶32

NTR.J crlrc 2099 201tt

¶33

¶34

accommodarion are improper. Thus, prapd for intervention in revEron.

¶35

4 In suppon, re,ing on Somagani Venkata Subbamma v. District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District and anothel pleaded that this C-oun had held that if the manner of doing a parricular Act is prescribed under any staturc, the same musr be done in that manner or not at all. Further, assened that n Sunil Gangadhar Kadam; Gangadhar Jalbaii Kadam; Sudhir Gangadhar Kadam v. tayashri Sunil l{adam; State of

¶36

Maharashtraz it was held, when no domestic violence is established, granring any relief on the ground of refusal or neglecr to maintain would be grave error and contrary to the law

¶37

Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that rhe trial and appellate Couns have properly considered mater-ials placed on record and rightly held rhat the re'ision peritioner is liable ro pay rnainrenance to the child and for

¶38

'' ]xrr, (-l),rt lt Lrl I l(Jl l Lawsurl(llonr) 56(,

¶39

F-

¶40

NTR.J crlrc 209q 2018

¶41

¶42

altemadve accommodation. Flence no tenable reason is made out

¶43

in the revision.

¶44

I have carefully considered the submissions of the^leamed counsel and penrsed the materials on record.

¶45

The PWDV Act intends to protect women from domestic violence which include phlaical, sexual, vertal, emotional and economic abuse and also covers harassment for unlawful^demand for dowry. It provides to secure the women's housing and^her right to reside in matrimonial home or share household. Funher, the Act empowers lvfagistrate to pass protection order in favour of the aggrieved person to prevent the respondens from aiding or committing domestic violence or any specified Act and causing violence of the aggrieved person.

¶46

In the present case, leamed lvlagistrate after due enquiry and on merits held that there is no domestic violence as attdbuted against the revision petitioner. That being the position, .^{respondentNo.2cannot be held as aggrievedperson, as such,}

¶47

NTR,J crlrc 2099 20lll

¶48

¶49

¶50

granting any relief under Sections 18 to 22 of P\flDV Act would be improper. However, as the custody of minor son was granrcd ro rhe respondent No.2, making arranBement of maintenance and for accommodation would be proper in the interest of the minor. Flowever, the Couns below failed to consider the above noted aspecs in granring renr for altemarive accommodation for respondenr No.2. Pertinently, revision peririoner fairly submined that the maintenance amounr awarded ro the petitioner No.2/minor son is being paid and other expendirure such as school fees and related expenses were being mer by rhe respondent No.2. That being the position, as rhe minor child is residing wirh his morher/respondenr No.2, granting amounr for his accommodadon, in proponion would be proper in meeting the ends of^justice.

¶51

Resultantly, by maintaining the mainrenance amount awarded ro rhe minor child,/respondenr No.2, the amounr granted towards alter-narive accommodation to the minor son is modified to an amounr of Rs.7,500/-.

¶52

¶53

NTR.J crlrc 2099 2018

¶54

Accordingly, this Revision Case is allowed in pan.

¶55

fu a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶56

To,

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

SD/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTYfl,EGISTRAR )V,/

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

4231 Two CCs ro one IP,ll lhe V CC Addl. Metropolitan l:ll"f"titan to Sri^pubtic Ba[a prosecutor,^Masistrate, Ravindranaths"rifl;idil;iJ""," Sessio.ni Judge Hlgt, Court^Hyderabad, foi (Mahila iii"'St;il Court) of Tetanagana atat 1oeUc1Hyderabad Hyderabad. IOPUC] 5. Two CD copies. Cvk/j ak

2N{,

HIGH COURT

DATED:0110912023

1 $E STA r4: o^
Joo 1 3 FEB 2021
a)
i ..,
Ca. r,.,, r,:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

CRLRC.No.2099 of 2018