Husband challenged concurrent orders directing him to pay Rs.12,000 per month maintenance to his wife and children under a domestic violence complaint, citing his lower net salary and loan burdens. The High Court found he earned about Rs.40,000 per month, that respondents had no sufficient means, and dismissed the revision.
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.
HIGH COURT.FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY.,.THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CONTE MPT CASE NO i3650F 2024
contbmpt case fired Under sections 10 ro 12 of contempt of courts Act to punish he respondents herein for wilfuly and deriberatery/viorating the orders of the High Court dated 08/01/2024 passed in W.p.No.23768 of 2OZO
Between:
6 N.Nanda Kumar, Sio. N.Veerappa, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retd. Senior Assistant, R/o. H.No. 15$5t1, Kodandaram Nagar, Saroornagar ftlandat, Hyderabad.
AND
I !! 5 IiE It aI
...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4
Counsel for the petitioners: SRl. C RUTHWIK REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents:-_
The Court made the following: ORDER
E F t i I i i t !
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEE. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo.365OF 2o24
ORDER:
This crimina-I revision case is filed aggrieved bythe orderpassed by the learned Principal SessionsJudge, Karimnagar dated 2.1.2075in Cr1.A.No.53 of 2Ol4 conhrming the orderpassed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class(SpecialMobile) at Karimnagar partly allowing the DVC No.38 of2O 1 1 dated6.3.2014and directingthe petitioner to pay an amount ofRs.12,O00 l-per month tothe respondents to bepaid onor before10th of every succeeding month towards their maintenancefrom the date of the order.
3 The facts germane for filingof the present criminal r:evisioncase, succinctly, are thatthe marriage of the petitioner-husbandand the 1* respondent-wifewasperformedon 9.6.1980at her parents house at Sriramulapally ofKarimnagarDistrictas per theircustoms' At the time of marriage herparentsgave an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- in cash,15 tulas of gold ornamentsand other householdarticles as dowry'Dueto their rvedlock theywere blessed with one son and two daughters and prior to 2010 thepetitionerusedto quarrelwith the respondent-wife frequently onpetty issues, he used to come home in the night in a drunken condition, hcusecl to beat the respondent No lmercilesslyin
2
drunken condition and he neglected to maintain the 1'r respondent and her children. Due to the famiiy disputes their chiklren did not study well and. it has become difhcult to the lst respondent toperform their marriages. l"t respondent did not ieave the society of the petitioner voluntarily and she is not in a position to maintain herself and living at the mercy of her brothers. Petitioner is working as short hrer in SCC Ltd. At Srirampur, Naspur colony, Manchir5,al and he is getting Rs.4O,,lOO/- per month towards his salary. The respondent willfully neglected them though he is having capacity and obligation to maintain thene and therefore prayed the learned lower court for protection orders, maintenance of Rs.2O,OOO/- per month, Rs.20,000/for the marriage and education of their children, Rs 10,OO,00O/towards compensation and Rs.5O,OOO/- towards relurn of dowry given in the marriage. The learned Judge of lower court allowed the petition in part directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.12,00O/to the lst respondent and her children towards their maintenance on or before 1Ott'of t:very succeeding mot-rth, either directly to the petitioner or to her ban.< account. Aggneved by the said order the petitioner herein filed an appeal and the lorver appellate court also confirmed the order passed b,y the learnecl lorver court. Aggricved by thr: same, this criminal revisic,n case is filecl by the petitioner.
4 The petitioner herein, being the respondcnt before the trial Court, filed counter affldavit. rvhile admitting the factum of marriage,
J
1 t, 5 t i
inter alia, contended that on proposalof his wife for better educationof their children took a housefor rent in Karimnagar town and used to provide all expenses including educationalexpenses of the children. and used to visit Karimnagar everyweek. Subsequentlyhe purchased an open plot in Mankammathotalocality and constructed a buildingin door No.7-1-556 situatedat DhangarwadiHighSchoolwith his salary savings by taking loans.The said houseis givenon rent and his wife is receiving Rs.5,OOO/- per monthtowards rent from the tenants. Petitioner has beenworking in coal mines undergroundwork for the last 20 years but hiswife nevertook care of him.He provided good education to his children, hisson completedEngineering Degree in Karimnagar and his eldestdaughter completedB.Sc. Nursingand doingjob at Hydcrabadin care hospital andhe has provided necessary expenses for the Damceteducationof his younger daughter.As his son wanted to go to U-K.for higher education, he obtained loan of Rs'3'5 lakhs from hisprovidentfurrd,Rs- 1.25 lakhs from LIC and provided Rs.5 Lakhs to hisson for his education, but instead of going abroad, his son involvedin a criminal case of fake National saving certificate. The respondents havesufficientincomeand they are able to maintain themselves, her eldestdaughter is earning Rs fO,O0O/-per monthand he stated thathe is getting net salaryof Rs.22,000/-out of which he has to repayloans and maintain old aged motherand he has been paying intcrim maintenanceofRs.3,OOO/- per month to allthe petitioners regr-rlarly andhe did not neglectthem and already he is in
4
searchof bridegroom to performthe marriage of their daughterand thereforeshe is not.entitled to seek any relief and interim n'Laintenance fromthe Petitioner'
5 Duringttre course of trialbeforethe lowerCourt' 1"' respondent' was examinedas PW1 and petitionerwas examined as RWl and also got exaniinedltW2 ald no documentsare markedon eitherside'
6 Aftergoing through the entire material availableon record'the trial CourtallowedthepetitiongrantinganamountofRs.l2,000/. to the1"t respondent_wife and their children towards their p.m fromthe date of thrs orderpayable directlyto the 1st maintenance respondenton or before lOth of every succeedingmonth'
7 Thecontentionof the learned counsel for the petitioneris that the learnedtrial Court and appellate court ought to lravt: seenthat the petitioneris earning onlyRs 22'000/-per monthas salaryand out of whichhe has to maintainhimsetfanclalso to repaY the loans obtained by himand withoutgiving any definite findings with regard to claim as well asthe averments made by the petittoner'in a r:asual manner, IearnedJFCMaliowed theDVC PartlY granting tnaintenanceof Rs.12,OOO/- per monthto the respouclentsand the appellate courtalso withoutexamining the samc in proper perspectiveconfirmed the same'
5
! !
I
of both parties, it is an admittedfact that respondents are living at the house of sister of PWI atHyderabadand that the respondents are in possession of house bearing No.7-l-556situatedat Mankammathota,' Karimnagar and they receivedsomeamounttowardsrent from the tenants ald since her sisteris maintainingher and her children,she promised to provide amount asand when she gets the amount' There is no mention in thepetition since what time respondentswere completely neglected byappellantherein but it is clear from the evidence that PWland RWI lived together for a period of nineyears and the relation betweenthem is completelystrained since May, 2006 and by the date ofgiving evidence itself they are staying in the houseof l"t respondent'ssister. Further the appellantis working in Singareni Collieries and earningRs.4O,OOO/-per monthand itis his duty to maintain respondentsherein and unless and until itis established that respondentsare havingsufficientmeans to maintainthemselves, it is the duty of theappetlantherein to provide thema reasonable amount for theirmaintenance. Therefore,inthe absence of any material to showthe financialcapacity of tl're respondents to maintain themselves, it isthe cluty of the appellantto providethem proper maintenance.Considering the aspectof financial capacity of the petitioner herein as hiseamingsper monthare Rs'4O,OOOI - 'tl:e learned trial courthas reasonably granted an amountof Rs'12'O00/- per month to the resPorldcnts.
6
9 In that view of the matter, the trial Court below had rightly allowed the petition in part by granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.12,00O/- per month to the respondents. I see no ground much less valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings ol the Courts below and accordingly this criminal revision case does not deserve merit considera.tion.
10 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal rr:vision case shall also stand dismissed.
SD/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISJRAR
,,.
//TRUE COPY//
To, 1. One CC to liRt. C RUTHWK REDDy Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CD Copies CD/JAK
secrroru oFFtcER
)
HIGH COURT
DATED:11103t2024
ORDER
t
YrE SIA,
a
1;
(((
oC 2! 'tri, f ?5 2
IC,
^+
t)€ ) .,
PAi ' ,i
CC.No.365 of 2O24
CC IS CLOSED
E"r
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's direction to pay Rs.12,000 per month maintenance was sustainable given the petitioner's claimed income of Rs.22,000 per month.
Whether the appellate court's confirmation of the maintenance award suffered from any infirmity warranting interference in revision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Revision Petitioner (husband)
First Respondent (wife)
Respondents 2 and 3 (children)
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
