Allowed

Mohammed Shoeb v. The State of Talangana and another

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/78/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a domestic violence case involving interim maintenance, the High Court allowed a criminal revision petition. The court found that both inferior courts failed to consider an employment certificate submitted by the husband to prove low earnings. The appeal was allowed, quashing the maintenance orders, and remanding the matter to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 20.01.2023 and 22.10.2019 were set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court to consider the employment certificate and pass revised orders.

Mohammed Shoeb Vs The State of Talangana and another — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

F"'*

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FR{DAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 78 OF 2023

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Order dated. 20.01 .2023 passed in Crl.A.No.1032 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad, confirming the Order daied.22.10.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019 in DVC No.09 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolltan fi4agistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohammed Shoeb, S/o. Mohammed Hasham, Aged about 29 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No. 17-1-130, Reinbazar, lmambara, Hyderabad

¶10

...Accu sed/Petitin er

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Talangana, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court for State of Telangana, at Hyderabad

¶13

Asma Parveen, W/o. Mohammed Shoeb Qureshi, Aged about 24^years, Occ.House Hold, Rl/o H. No. 14-8-169, Oontwadi, Chudibazar, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶14

...ComplainanURespondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 482 C(.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orderdated.20-01-2023^passed in Crl.A.No. 1032 of 2019 by [vletropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Order^passed in Crl.MP No. 642

¶17

¶18

\ tt,

¶19

of 2019 in DVC No.09 of 2019 on thefile of the lll Metr:prolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Co rrt) at Hyderabad, dated. 22-10-2019 Jrending disposal of the Crl.RC.

¶20

Counsel for the P rtitioner: SRI P. RANA KAMALASAN Counsel for the R espondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSI:CUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶21

The Court made t re following: ORDER

¶22

x.U

¶23

HON'BLE SMI" JUSTICE C. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶24

C'rl. lt.C.No.78 OF 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is arising out of the judgment dated 20.01.2023, in Crl.A.No. 1032 of 2019 on the frle of Metropolitan Sessions Judgc, Hyderabad, which arose out of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.642 of'2019, in DVC.No.9 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019, on the flle ol Ill Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court) Hyderabad.

¶27

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed in Domestic Violence Case. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in DVC.

¶28

The revision petitionerirespondent has challenged the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019, before the appellate Court wherein the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards interim maintenance, from the date of order, till the disposal of main DVC and further shall pay the said maintenance on or before 10th of every month

¶29

¶30

¶31

G..t(.,.t ( rl-tl.(.\i'8 o[ )t)2.1

¶32

either direc ly to the petitioner or in16 the bank account ol petitioner.

¶33

The zppellate Couft after considering the contenrions ol the appellart have confirmed the orders in Crl.MIrNo.642 ol 2019 dated'.'.2.10.2019.

¶34

Being aggrieved by the orders of both thc ( ourls below, the present Criminal Revision Case is pret'er-r.eil.^-i-he rcvision petitioner is the husband of the respondent/pet itiorre i.r tl.e DVC. Initially. thr DVC was filed by the wile/peririone r corrrending that her n rarriage was performed with the respon<lent on 24.07.2017. A defer dower of Rs.l1,000/-, cash ,rl Rs.,5 lakhs was paid (,n demand. Further, they gave I 5 lolas of gold omaments, 51 tolas of silver omaments,.bullet mot,rrcycle, jahez articles wo:th of Rs.5 lakhs two days prior ro marriage. After few days^, rf their marriage, misunderstanding a.ose between them and tre revision petitioner/respondent sold a r.vay the gold and silver ( marnents belonging to the petitioner anrl ]rarassed her physically and mentally, threatened to kitl her lr pronounce

¶35

-l

¶36

G,IL', J Ctl. R-C.:\o78 of 2023

¶37

Ct,

¶38

divorce in order to marry another wor.nan and also demanded for additional dowry ol Rs.5 Iakhs.

¶39

It is the further contention of the petitioner before the trial Court that the respondent is running meat business and supply^it to hotels, function halls etc., and was earning monthly^income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- p.m. attd also receiving^rents of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- p.m. and^prayed to grant^interim marntenance.

¶40

The revision petitioner/respondent flled a detailed counter denying all the material allegations and prayed to dismiss the application. But, the trial Court has granted Rs.7,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to the petitioner therein.

¶41

Heard the leamed counsel lor the revision petitioner. Perused the record.

¶42

It is the specific contention of the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner that despite of producing document i.e., certificate issued by the employer of respondent, neither the trial Couft nor the appellate Court considered the said document

¶43

-------rrI

¶44

¶45

G1(,.1 C R.C-1i,78 of 2023

¶46

l .1

¶47

rvhich prorr )s the earnirlgs ol revision petitioner.^{IIr. relorc,tron} consiclering the; docurnents is the error and irreg:l,trity in the orders o{'tl e trial Cou( as^well as the appellate^{C rtrrt.} lt^{is the} further con -ention of the learned counsel that the \4em,tranduln of grounds also discloses the appellant has filed a lt:curnent^i.c.. the certificlte dated 11.09.2019 issued by his employe" i.e.^Taj Mutton Sh rp showing that he is working as labour zLrrd i; earnirr-q upto Rs. I50/- per day. The said docutnent^rvas t-lcd betirre the trial Courl to prove his income which was not ct',nsitlorcd^b) either oft re Clourts below and therefore^prayed tr^{.let aside thc} ordels of t oth the Courts below.

¶48

On rearing the contentions of the^{coutrsel fr,tLhe appellant} and on p, )rusi of the orders of both^{the Cour-r; be,ow,} it^is evident tt at n.either the trial Court^{nor the appelate tloufthas} discussed about the document which^{was filed by ll'e respondent} herein. \'ithout going into merits,^{this Courtis ol ttreconsidered} view that it is^just and necessary for^{the trial} Clt,tltl to consider the docur renl filed by the revision^{petitionerhereirtar.rd} to^pass

¶49

8rs

¶50

¶51

GA(', J Crl.R.C..No78 of 2023

¶52

¶53

ordcrs alresh^{considering the documcnt filed by the respondent} i.c.. cerlillcate^{datedI 1.09.2019.}

¶54

I l. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is^allowed setting aside the orders dated 20.01.2023 in Crl.A.No.1032^of 2019, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabadand} consequently the orders dated 22.10.201 9ⁱⁿ Crl.M.P.No.642^ol 2019 in DVC.N.O9 of 2019 on thc file of III^Metropolitan Magistrate are also hereby set aside and the^{matter is rernanded} back to the triat Court/III Metropolitan^{Magistrate (Traffic} Mobile Court) Hyderabad, for^passing orders^{alresh after hearing} the parties and considering the^document i.e.^employment certificate

¶55

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall^stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

SD/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶58

/ffRUE COPY//

¶59

SECTION^OFFICER

¶60

To I . The Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad'} 2. ffre f f f Meiropolitan^{Magistrate (Traffic MobileCourt)' at Hyderabad'} 3. Two CCs to ihe^{PublicPro.ecuiot,High Court for the State of} Telangana, at^HYderabad [OUT]

¶61

1. One iC to^{Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, Advocate IOPUC]} 5 Two CD CoPies MMK

HIGH COURT

GAC, J

DAf ED:0310212023

t"'r'.J/ i\ 1t-l
1 3 Fi! 2;,r

¶69

ORDER

¶70

CRLRC.No.78 ol 20it3

¶71

ALLOWING THI J Ctl|MINAL REVISION CASE

¶72

@
1\
9;

Mohammed Shoeb v. The State of Talangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shoeb v. The State of Talangana 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

Merugu Rajinikar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Maddelavada Bhaskar Vs The State of Telangana

Maddelavada Bhasker and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Athluri Rama Chaitanya Vs The State of Telangana

Athluri Rama Chaitanya Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Nazmeen sultana, Vs The State of Telangana