Partly allowed

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang v. Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Telangana HC13 Feb 2023CRLRC/677/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a 2015-year gap in maintenance claims. While noting the trial court's 2008 order granting Rs.2,000 was meagre given passage of time and inflation, the Court held that while the wife's increased to Rs.3,000, the quantum for the children remained unchanged.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance for the wife enhanced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.3,000 per month; maintenance for children retained at Rs.2,000 per month.

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang Vs Smt.Anupama , Divya and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

t^32se I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 677 OF 2OO8

¶7

¶8

CRIMlNAL REVISION CASE NO: 788 OF 2008

¶9

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 677 OF 2008

¶10

Criminal Revision case under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 7l2l2OOB made in M.C.NO. 71 of 20OG for the Trial of JHCBBCcum-Additional Family court-cum-XXlll Additional chief Judge, Hyderabad

¶11

Between:

¶12

DR.JAGDISH KUMAR TELANG, S/o Dr.Venkat Rao Telang, Rl/o Bhavani Nivas, Shivpur Street, Humnabad Dist.Bidar.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

SMT.ANUPAMA @ DIVYA, W/o Sri Jagdish Kumar Telang, Ryo H.No.4-b-ffi, Esamia Bazar, PO: Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶16

Kum. Shivangi T., D/o Sri Jagdish Kumar Telang, Student R/o H.No.4-6-63, Esamia Bazar, PO: Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶17

Master Shashank, S/o Sri Jagdish Kumar Telang, Student FI/o H.No.4-6-63, Esamia Bazar, PO: Kachiguda, Hyderabad. (rep. 2 & 3 are (minors), rep. by her natural mother

¶18

The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶19

(Respondents 2 and 3 minor rep by her natural guardian mother R-l)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

l.A. NO: I OF 2008(CRLRCMP. NO: 920 0F 2008)

¶22

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Order passed in M.C.No.7112006, dated 07.O2.OB on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of JHCBB Case-cum-Addl. Family Court-cum-XXlll Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶23

¶24

Counsel for the Pe litioner: SRl. N ASHOK KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Rr r;pondent No.4: PUBLIC PROSECIJTOR

¶26

Counsel for the Re r;pondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI R DILIP KUMI R JA SWAL

¶27

CRIMINAL REVII;I( )t\ CASE NO: 788 OF 2008

¶28

Crimin;rl Fle\ s on case under section 397 and 401 rf Cr.P.C against lhe Judgment daled 7./ '/:,'0C)8 made in It4.C.NO. 71 of 20(tA {or tu r Trial of JHCBBC cum'Additroneil Filrr I), court-cum-XXlll Additional chief Judg;e, H,derabad

¶29

Between:

¶30

1 SI,4T. I\NL,P.^,.1,1A ALIAS DIVYA, W/o. Dr. Jagd sh Kt nrar^-[elang, StudenU Housewife F c H.No. 4-6-64, Esamia Bazar, P.C.Kachrguda Hyderabad-s00 027.

¶31

Kumari Shrv: n,.li Telang, D/o. Dr. Jagdish Kumar Telarg Student Rl/o. H.No. 4-6-64. Es rn a Baza(, P.O.Kachiguda, Hyderabari-SO0 )117.

¶32

lt4aster Sh rs ra rk Telang, S/o. Dr. Jagdish Kumar Tela riy, Rro. H.No. 4-6-64, Esamia Baza .^{r.O.Kachiguda,} Hyderabad-s0O 0;17.

¶33

(petitioner Nr'; 2 & 3 are being the minors rep br' their Ciuarlian and Mother P-1)

¶34

..PETITIONERS

¶35

AND

¶36

DR. JAGD Sl^' l'(UMAR, S/o. Dr. Venkat Rao Telang, R/o lhavani Nivas,' Shivpur St,e(^I , Humnabad District Bidar -330.

¶37

State or Ardt ra Pradesh, through Public Proseculor, Hi(th Court of Andhra Pradesh, F yc r-,rabad.

¶38

.. RESI)ONDENT NO.2

¶39

Counsel for the l)e itioners: SRl. R DILIP KUMAR JAISWAL

¶40

Counsel for the lle ;,pondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECLITOR

¶41

Counsel for the lle rpondent No.1: SRI N ASHOK KUMAR

¶42

The Court made th , following: COMMON ORDER

¶43

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶44

¶45

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.677 of 2OO8 & CRIMINAL RE\rISION CASE No.788 of 2OOa

¶46

COMMON ORDER:

¶47

This Crimina-l Revision Case No.677 of 2008 is fiied by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as ?rusband) and the Criminal Revision Case No.7B8 of 2008 is filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred as kife and childrenJ are under Section 397 read with Section 4O 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, aggrieved by the Order dated 07.02.2008 in M.C.No.71 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case Court-cum-Additional Family Court-cumXXIII Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad, gralting monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to the wife and children.

¶48

Since revision petitioners in both the cases are challenging the same impugned Order and the issue involved in both these cases is one and the same and the parties are husband, wife and their children, both the cases are being disposed by way of this Common Order.

¶49

'1 0ll. r,: f acts in briel^{an e as under:} in Thc r arriage ol^{the revlsionpt titi lner} CRL.R.C^I.Ic, '-t'/7^{of 2O0B rt'ith the revisiorr petitione r No 1 rn} CRL.R.^{(l l'ltr} 7 38 ol 2008^{u'as performed} 'rn^{0(r")'2 i99ir and} - r,,ed1ocl<, thev vn'ere blesr;ecl "r'ith^{the tu'o} during^the 'r,lreafter, the husband and ilis fanrily members children.^'l started^hztri s ;ing his^{u'ife physicallv and rnentzLlly demanding} additiona^r ': lr.ry. Whtle^{the she r'vas purt;uingher studiesin} Osmania^l- nrversity at^{Hyderabad,the husbl.rd developed} i11ega1 intin a:y nith another^{girl. The hrisbarLcisr;ued legal} notice on 3 01.2006^{to his} ',r'ife^{with falsezLll egations and} she senl L rr:p1y on^{01.02.2006seeldrrg Flestitution of} ii.rlhts. The^{husband neglectedt ne wife and} Conjugal^I children^ar C left their company.^{The wileartt I r:hi'drenhave} no means¹ o maintain^{themselves.The hlrsbarLcis Dentist by} profession a rd also working^{as Lecture r in Iltenr-alCollege} and ealrLu: 13^{Rs.50,000/-per month Theret'yth: wife and} children^st urght for Rs.10,000/-^{to the wife l'Ld Rs'5'000/-} r hildren. each^{1.o th(}

¶50

¶51

¶52

The husband opposed the said maintenance case s[ating that the vrrife left his house company, on the pretext of studies and that she is an arrogant woman and she got dominating nature and she did not return back and she is staying at Hyderabad at the instance of her parents and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶53

During the course of trial, the wife herself was examined as PWI and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P16. The husbard got himself examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.Rl to R27. On hearing both sides, the trial Court has ultimately granted Rs.2,OOO/- each per month towards maintenance to the wife and children.

¶54

Aggrieved by the same, the wife and children have filed Criminal Revision Case No.788 of 2OO8 on following grounds:

¶55

I The trial Court ought to have gralted maintenance as prayed for in view of the income of the husband. 1l The trial Court ought to have noted that wife has not \ vqluntarily left the company of the husband and she is entitled for maintenalce as prayed for.

¶56

¶57

iij. T'hc 1. ii.[ Corlrl^{orlgllt h a--ve obser''/'rd thzLl tirere is no} :ioul'ce o r1()ome lbr^{n'ife and she hal; to lc'ok after hr:r} cl-riidre n

¶58

C't7. it:ar,,l Sri^R Dilip^{Kumar Jalsrval,1()6trn()c1counsel} for the^pt:ti .ir.rners^{|los. L to 3 as -tl'ell as lln N l shokKumar,} learne,C^c ot^tn sel^{for l-he rcspcndent Noanc ilriNluth-vala} Muraliclhar^{lear-ned Adciitiona-lPublic Pros':c lttc r lor the} Stal-e in^(lr: n-.ina1^{Revision Case No.788 ci 20t 8 and perused} the re<:or I

¶59

0B ,\13gneved bv the same, the hrrslrzr nd has^filed Criminal R ,v ision Case No.fr77 of 2OO8 otr fblk'v'int; grounds: i. '[hc, t i:r-l Court has^{failedto appreciateth': e'ridenceon} record in^p c,per perspective.

¶60

ii. 'lht: ri al Court ought^{to have conside'eC the rvife is} il:ed and did her^{Ph.D., from Osma:ria Universitv} highly qtta and cape^.bJ :: of earning her livelihood. iii. 'Ihr: t -i al Court ought to have nott:d thr1.^{the wife has} volunlar^1v L::ft the company^{of the hr-rsband.}

¶61

¶62

)

¶63

Heard Sri N Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as u,ell as Sri R Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. I to 3 and Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in Criminal Revision Case No.677 of 2OO8 and perused the record.

¶64

Now the point for determination is:

¶65

Whether the Order dated 07.O2.2OO8 in M.C.No.71 of 2006 on the frle of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case Court-cum-Additional Family Court cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Hyderabad, is liable to be set side ?

¶66

POTNT:

¶67

As seen from the record, these Criminal Revision Cases are liled in the year 2008 questioning the quantum of compensation granted in M.C.No.71 of 2006.

¶68

¶69

Learned counsel appearing for the wife and children as well as the learned counsel appearing for the husband though made an attempt to hle certain documents and also filed counter, this Court is of the opinion that in the

¶70

¶71

¶72

circumstan( l{i, u,}-rich are developed subse 1r ten t to the passingl o^' t rr , Orders in the: 1'ear 20OB t}' ct, :u <' tro I reLcvant for considcr^,rtion of these Criminal Revisron C a,;es which is being tak:n^,rp in the year 2023. If at all, tl.e ro are any changed cril umstances r'r'hicl-r either the ri'ifc: arxl cl-tilclren or the husbant , will have even, right to appr,r:rc:h tl:e tria,l Court urrder Ser:ti tr 127 of the Criminal Proc,:drrre^(locte or any other rr:1e.ra r1. provisions

¶73

1,3 .^{( i} r ievance of the wife and childre Lr is that the quantum of ,a.rnount granted by the trial Court. s \rely meagre and that h.e trial Court failed to^,:onsi I^r, r that the maintenalc . i nount granted is required lor maiutzLining the. u,ife ald tt =ir children in respect of rent, 1o:rd, clothing, medical e:(p rses, school expenses etc.,. ;\dmittt,dly, the ll,ife though qra lilied 1S not working ald thereb', shr: has no means. IL^,:r'efore, it. is clear that wife has rto ilource of income ar.d r;he has to depend upon only on the tnajntenance being provii r:r:[ by the husband on1y. As p]r th(r^t.)rders of the trial Cour t. the wife and children are being prouded r,"'ith Rs.2,000/- r a:h

¶74

¶75

¶76

The children rvere school-going as on the date of passing of Orders by the rrial Court in the year 2OO8 and they were aged about 8 and 7 years. After lapse of 15 years, now they should be 23 and 22 years respectively. During this period, fees of school and colleges also must have been borne by the wife.

¶77

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the husband that the husband has paid the fees for the professional courses of their children. However, it is reported by the learned counsel for the wife and children also that though he got admitted their children in the professional courses, he stopped paying fees and thereby the the wife and children are put to lot of inconvenience.

¶78

)

¶79

It is further submitted that the husband stopped working as lecturer in Dental College and not getting Rs.5O,0O0/ -. Learned counsel appearing for the husband has further submitted that husband is not getting aly income as L€cturer and he is not working anywhere and that he has to take care of his old aged parents. However, in the ) cross-examination he has admitted that his mother is retired

rll

...t-:tt.;l;

bank c'tr11 , r','et: anrl hrs faiircr is :rn Er-llr'rvir ,t lrr I and l;oth

¶84

arr: gcttr r;: fiensiolls ancl thcl' arc nol <lcpcr rlc n sr^r rlt Itinl

¶85

17⁽ onsidering llrr: facts altd ci;-cLln!:rtrri <'cs of the case an,l i,)<sup>'ing frorn an.r' angl,', evcl on :⁽ nS^(le ritlg the Clrcl tIn Sl al1 a:ts prevailing in the .car tlOO8 : lr irmoLrni of Rs.2,OO(t,r jlramted to the ri,ife and chillrr'n isr^',zt'ry meagre Conside,ir- 1 aJl the above, this C.or-rrt. rs o- t r( r)l)ini()n that the trial O^,r.rt could have becn more s) nrlratl-r::tic ancl could l-rave granl rcl more tl-ran Rs.2,000i - per n,rnt r. iiilc' deserves monthl) n aintenance of Rs.3,000/ inr;tcad , i' Iis.2.0O0/Hoq,ever, t rc maintenance of Rs.2,0O0/ cir< h t I tlre children rreed not b n'l-erfered with

¶86

1B lrt view of the above, the r,'lir'f --lirin ed l.rt' the revls1()n [^{3litioner/ husband inCriminalIicvi;ion Case} No.677 r,f^;CO8 is hereby dismissed and th(r r:1Lef claimed by the rev:si r petitioners/wife and childrerr in Criminal Revision⁽ a se No.78B of 2O0B is he^'ebv r,art lv allowed enhancing t.he monthiy maintenance to [[r e u,ife from Rs.2,00C/- to Rs.3,000,/

¶87

¶88

With the above euhancement of maintenance

¶89

amount, these Criminai Revision Cases are disposed of.

¶90

There shall be no order as to costs

¶91

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications in this

¶92

matter, if any, shall stand closed

¶93

SD/-T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-cumAdditional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge Hyderabad

¶99

2 Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of

¶100

Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

¶101

3 One CC to SRl. N ASHOK KUMAR Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to SRI. R DILIP KUfvlAR JAISWAL Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

HIGH COUR T

DATED:13t0'2i2023

'.--::-:-..
t- ,, ,,al;,1'
{ ',^ ,<br>,4 ,
<,) <br>/,-
t_t
li, r JilL [rcl -l ,l
.t ,r
ti r'.
',:/

¶108

COMMON O RDER

¶109

CRLRC.N ct.ti7'7 AND 788 of 2008

¶110

DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC
v?
t
z/ --)
, <\i,
\o \Y
o !e

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang v. Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Jagdish Kumar Telang v. Smt.Anupama , Divya and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tak Karan Singh , Kalu Singh and 2 Others Vs the State of A.P.

Mohammed Rafi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

B.Srinivasulu, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp and Another

Kumbaro Suresh and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bommera Srinivas Vs State of Telangana

P. Saroja Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others