Dismissed

Mohd. Abdul Raheem, and Another, v. Mohd. Rasheed and Another

Telangana HC16 Feb 2023CRLRC/356/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision challenged an interim maintenance order of Rs. 2,500 granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisional court noted the maintenance proceedings were initiated 14 years prior and likely merged in the main disposal, limiting the scope for interference. It held the trial court committed no error.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed.

Mohd. Abdul Raheem, and Another, Vs Mohd. Rasheed… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY,^{THE SIXTEENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICED.NAGARJUN}

¶5

CRIMIN AL^{REVISIONCASE NO:356 0F 2010}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mohd. Abdul^{raheem, S/o late Mohd' Abdul Kareem'}

¶8

Rafath^{Sultana, WoMohd' Abdul Raheem' Housewife'}

¶9

BothRl/oFirstFloor,H.No'8-2-676t1tBl5Ot1O'Sriramnagar'RoadNo'12' Banjara Hills,^HYderabad'

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

1 6?;i;,Bisor1 Mohd. Rasheed^{0, biir"rnrsut,'Roid S/o Mohd.Abdul Raheem' No' 1 2, Banjara Tailor'R'/o Hills' H No 8-2-Hvderabad'} 2 The State of^{Andhra Pradesh, rep' by its Public Prosecutor'} Hign Courtof^{A.P.,atHYderabad'.} ...ResPondent

¶13

Revision^{filedunder Section 397 & 401} of CrPC PraYing^{that in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportoftheCriminalRevision Case, the^{High Court may be pleasedto presentthis Memorandumof Crl'RC '} before this^{Court againstthe order dl' 26-12-2009 in Crl MP No 1010 of 2009 in} MC.No.24Tof200gonthefileoftheAdditionalMetropolitanJudgeforthetrialof JHcBBc-cum-AdditionalFamilyCourt-cum-XXlllAdditionalChiefJudge' Hyderabad.

¶14

For the Petitioner^{: Sri Fazal Yousuffudin(Not Present)}

¶15

Forthe Respondent^{No.l : None appeared}

¶16

For the Respondent^{No'2 : Sri MUTHYALAMURALIDHAR'Additional Public} Prosecutor

¶17

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶18

HON OURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGATIJUN CRIII:INAL REVISION CASE No.356 of 2t)10

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

No reJ rr:sentation on behalf of the yretrtir,n ers so also on behalf of respondent No.1

¶21

This, Ievision is filed aggrieved by the rrdels dated 26.12.2OO9 in M.P.No.1010 of 2OO9 in M.C.No 2,.17 of 2OO9, which rvas ,lisposed of under Section i25(1) Cr.[,.C

¶22

The li .cts in brief as can be seen from tlrt: i:ecord are that the rr spondent No.l is the son, u,here:Lr; petitioner No. 1 is th: father. During the pendency of^.,he said M.C.No.24l of 2O09, petitioner No.1 being ftrth:r along rvith petitir,ner No.2, who is the wife of pe_rtioner No.1, have filecl e n application under Section 125 C.-.lr.C. seeking interim m intenance against respondent No.I After hearing b >th sides, the trial Court b1, crder-s dated 26.12.2OO\ allowed the application directing re,;pondent No.1 to l)er r an amount of Rs.2,500/ to petitione:- No. 1 as interirn rna intenancc.

¶23

¶24

¶25

Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed on the following grounds:

¶26

The trial Court has wrongly concluded that respondent No.l is the owner of the house and mulgi. Petitioner No.2 is not the natural mother of respondent No.l and thereby he need not to provide any maintenance to her. The trial Court has failed to consider the agreement dated 18.03.2009 and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the revision.

¶27

This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the simple order of the trial Court granting maintenance of meager arnount of Rs.2,500/- to petitioner No.1, who is no other thal the father of respondent No.l until the main M.C.No.247 of 2OO9 is disposed. The grounds raised by petitioner No.l in respect of petitioner No.2 that she is not the natural mother of respondent No.l and thereby she is not entitled for maintenance is not the subject matter to be decided in this interim application.

¶28

¶29

¶30

As ah e:rdy observed, the scope of Se:tron 125(1) Cr.P.C. is vr n, limited only to the extent of granl of interim maintenarlc: until disposal of the main M.C, so that during the intr:rr,:g lrm period, petitioner No. 1/f;rther u,ho has no means to m dntain himself with the meager anrount, which is being g: ven to him as ordered by the t:ial Court. Howevcr, tt ese orders are passed on 26.12.2OO9 i.r:., about i4 years a1o. The main M.C.No.247 of- 2OC9 also must have bet:n disposecl of by this time. V/he n once M.C.NI>.247 cf 2OO9 has been disposcd of, thc orclers p.rssed in he interim application will also g:t merged in the main or der and iooses its signihcanct,. Ihar is perhaps the reasor-r br the petitioners for not attendin6, the Court to prosecuto t^-ris rerrision.

¶31

As of served above, the scope of the pstition under Section 121;(1) Cr.P.C., is very limited. Similarl.z, the scope of this revi ;ion to consider the Iegality or otL e:-wi se of the orders p:rs,;ed by the trial Court in M.p.No.lOl() o.2009 is also limit.e< .

¶32

¶33

The scope of the revision against the Orders passed by the trial Court in maintenance case, has been dealt with extensively by the Honourable Apex court in a case between Pgla Mutgalamma @ Satgauathi Vs. pgla Suri Demudu and, anotherr wherein it is held that:

¶34

"9. In fact, we a_lso find suflicient substance in the plea that the High Court in its revisionJ i".i"Jl"iio., orrgfrt not to have entered into_ a scrutiny "f *r1 n"Jl.! recorded by t}le Magistrate that the appellant *as " -lrr'i"a *if" of the respondent, before aJlowing^'- an--*apptication determining maintenance as it is ,i.ff_="t,f.a, that the revisiona_l court can interfere only if thera is any ittegality in tJ e order or there is any malerial irregul#ty in the procedure or there is an _error of jurisdiciion. The High Court under its revisional jurisdicion is .roi.eqrri..a to enter into re-appreciation of evidence .""o.d"d in th" order granting maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a series of decisions including Suresh Mondairr". Statu of Jharkhaad. (2006 (11 Arnlhar. n. rsCitil"it u ""." where the learned Magistrate fra= g.anted-maintenance holding that the wife hid been neglefteJ;;-iil. wife was entitled to maintenance, the scop-e of interferenle by the revisional court is very limited. The revisi,oial court would not substitute its own finding anJ upset the maintenance order recorded Uy *re fraagi"st ate.^-

¶35

In revision against tJ:e maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.p.C., the ie"isio.rat court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own fmdings. Under revisionat .;u.isaicGn,- tire qrrestions whether the applicant is a married if., tf,. ch clren are legitimate/illegitimate, being pre_eminlnfly questions of fact, cannot be reopened "rri ifr. revisi,onal court cannot substitute its oum views. The High Court, thelejore, is not required in revision to interfere urith the positive_ finding in favour of the mariag. ,rra p"t o.r.g" of a child. But where frnding is " .,"g.ti," o.r", tt "-iig=t

¶36

I Judgme ddted. O}.OA.2O 1 1 in Crr.A.No.2 t 9 of 20Oz oJ Hoitelp.x Coun

¶37

¶38

¶39

eor:rt rvould entertain the revision, re-e,€ lLlate the r:vicLer ce and come to a conclusion whether tt t: hnrlings ,rr co rclusions reached by the Magistrate iro legally sustaj eable or not as negative hnding I.as evil conse luences on the life of both child rud tt,e wo r.tan. 'l'hrs v as the view expressed by the Suprome C;urt in the ma1.tc c)f Santosh (Smt.) vs. Naresh pal (191)gl 8 SCC 447 : L as also in the case of pawathy Rani Siahu vs. Bishn u Sahu (2OO2) lO SCC S lO. Thrrs, l.he ratio rlecidtndi which emerges out of a catena of aut:.lcritir:s on :he e fi()aoy and value of the order passecl by the 'lagis rzLte while determining maintenarr:e rrnc t:r Section I25, ir.P.C., is that it should not be disturlrr:d ..r.hile (lxerci jing revisionaJ jurisdiction.,,

¶40

[n vi :w of the above and having gon€^._hr ]ugh the entire rec( rd, this Court is of the opinion tl-rat the trial Court has not committed any error on itny count in passing tL e impugned orders ald therefrrre, thc revision fails and rs lial;1e to be dismissed.

¶41

i0. In th: result, the crimina.l revision case is disimissed.

¶42

Misc :llaleous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

:;d/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( -JJ) SI]CTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46