Dismissed

Rapaka Mohana Rao v. The State ofTelangana

Telangana HC3 Oct 2024CRLP/1872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing one quash petition and disposing another regarding attachment of retirement benefits. Court held attachment improper without undertaking, directing trial court to release benefits subject to paying maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to raise attachment order subject to undertaking to pay interim maintenance regularly and deposit arrears if any.

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State ofTelangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE^{THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMTJUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶7

CRIMINAL^P ETITION^{NOS:1 870 AND 1872oF2024}

¶8

CRIMINAL PETrTtoN^{NO.1870 OF 2024:-}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Years, Occ Ex.

¶11

1 Raoaka Mohana Rao,^{S/o RamaiahAged about38} S;il;;r;;, Goitapatem^{Village,Yerramukkammandal'} Srikakulam dist, Andhra Pradesh^dist.

¶12

...Petitioner^{/ Petitioner/ Respondent}

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Public prosecutor'High Court At} Hyderabad

¶15

2 Smt. Rapaka^{Padma, Wo Rapaka Mohana Rao,Agedabout 38 years' Occ'} Pvt Employee

¶16

J Chi. Rapaka^{Divyansh, S/o Rapaka MohanaRao, Agedabout 13 YearsOcc'} Student

¶17

4 Kum. Rapaka^{Pakshitha, D/o Rapaka Mohana Rao' Aged about 9 years' Occ'} St,il";i fh;^{R"ipono"ni N;.i A[lb a repov tne Respiondent No 2 Being} minors their natural^mother

¶18

The Resoondent No.2^{to 4 are resident of H'No'1-1-6-148/2'Madhavi Nagar} Colony, Alwal,^{Secundrabad-500010}

¶19

Also at

¶20

H.No.'l -1 7-34,^{Ram. Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secundrabad'Telangana-S0001 5}

¶21

.Respondents^{/ ComPlainant}

¶22

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P'C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to^{set asidethe order dated16 112023 in Crl'M'P No 10212022 in} cRl.M.P. No.13^{of 2020in MC No.58 of 2019 on the file of Principal District and}

¶23

t Sessions Judge-cu rn_Fa m ily Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri dist at Matkajgiri in the interest of justice

¶24

l.A. NO: 1 oF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr p C praying that in ther circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the ligh Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in MC No.5g of 20, g on the file of Principar District and Sessions Judge-cum-Famiry court, Medchar-Markajgiri dist at Markajgiri pending disposar of the Main Quash petition in the interest of the justice.

¶26

CRIMINALPETITIO N NO.18 72oF2024:-

¶27

Between:

¶28

1 ff F:p:Ir_ ff ::E:rt"ff^Mohana I tapa^Rao tem^S/o vi lase,^Ramaiah yerra m,ikkirli Aged abour "i,i no" 38r Years, SrikakulamOcc_ dist,Ex.

¶29

AND

¶30

...Petitioner / petitioner / Respondent

¶31

' Il:"?:lt:o"f^{relansana Rep bv its Pubticprosecutor, Hish} court At

¶32

' 3f;!ffi?iff"Padma'^{wo Rapaka Mohana Rao Ased about 38 years,} occ

¶33

, SflO|,ior*a Drvvansh, S/o Rapaka Mohana RaoAged about.t3 years Occ.

¶34

5,ll;"Xi-Orka pakshitha, D/o Rapaka Mohana Rao Aged about r) years, Occ

¶35

Ij,"r:?ffi,f,:?nt^{No.3864repby the Respondent No.2Beins} minors their

¶36

Ih ff 'Xl#f^g'":;,', ::3l;d6;,,t or H N o1 -'r -6-1 4Bl2, Mad havi Naga r

¶37

Also at H.No 1 -17 34, Ram Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secundrabad, Telangana_

¶38

...Respondents / C:omplainant

..4

lr;t

" Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 6.11.2023 in Crl.M. P.No.1O3t2O22 in CR1.M.P. No.3 of 2020 in MC No.SB of 20.19 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkalgiri dist at Malkajgiri in the interest of justice.

¶43

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶44

Petition under Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in MC No.58 of 2019 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri dist at Malkajgiri pending disposal of the Main Quash Petition in the interest of the justice

¶45

These Petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VSRMV Prasad Sanaka, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri M. Ratan Singh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶46

The Court made the following Order:-

¶47

¶48

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA IM NA PE IT o 7 ndl 72 f 4

¶50

cOMM ON ORDER:

¶51

Both the Criminal petitions have been filed aggrieved by the common order, dated L6.L1.2O23 passed in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2022 in Cd.M.p.No.13 of 2O2O and crt.M.p.No.103 0f 2022 in crl.M.p.No.3 0f 2020 in M.c.No.58 of 2019 on the file of principal District and Sessions Judge_ Cum-Family Court, Medchal_Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, wherein the aoplications filed under Section s I27 of Cr.p.C. to alter the interim maintenance granted to the respondents at Rs.5,000/- per month to each of them instead of Rs.il,000/already granted to them and also to alter the order in Crl.M.P.No.3 rlf 2O2O attachment of retirement benefits pending disposal of the M.C. and to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner, were allowed.

¶52

2 Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

{.Me

LJ \

Brief facts of^{the case are that respondent Nos'2 to 4} have filed^{M.C.No.58 of 2019 before Principal District and} sessions^{Judge-cum-Family court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District} at Malkajgiri,^{seeking maintenancefrom the petitioner'} Respondent^{Nos.2 to 4 have also filed Crl'M'P'No'13of 2O2O} seeking^{interim maintenance of Rs'15'000/-per month to} No.2 and^{Rs'10,000/-Per montheach} to respondent respondent^{Nos.3 and 4, pending disposalof the mainMC and} alsofiledCrl.M.P.No.3of2020seekingtoorderattachmentof retirementbenefitsofthepetitionerandthesameWere allowed^{by common order, datedlO'07'2022awarding interim} maintenance^{of Rs'8,000/-per montheach to respondent} Nos.2 to^{4 and also ordered attachmentof retirementbenefits} of the^{petitioner till the disposalof the main M'C' Against the} the^{petitionerfiled two applicationsi'e'} said common^order, 103 of 2022^{seeking to modifythe said} Crl.M.P.Nos.102^and the said^{aPPlications were} dismissed. orders.^However, same, the^{present Criminal Petitions have} Aggrieved^{bY the} been^filed.

¶57

4 Heard^{Sri VSRMVPrasad Sanaka' learnedcounselfor} the^{petitioner and Sri D . Arun Kumar,learnedAdditionalPublic}

-t

Prosecutor aopearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri M.Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No:s.2 to 4.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not observed the fact that the petir:ioner is retired from the service. He further submitted that the petitioner is getting basic salary of Rs.42,050/_ per month and he is getting harf of the pension, which is not sufficient to comply with the impugned orders dated 16.11.2023 and 10.01.2022 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the each respondent i.e. totar Rs.24,000/- per month. He further submitted that by an order, dated 22.09.2015, the Lieutenant Colonel has already accorded sanction for deduction of 33o/o from the pay and allowances of the petitioner and paid to the wife_ respondent No.2 for maintenance of herself and her ctrildren. Therefore, he prayed this court to confirm the said order, instead of granting Rs.8,000/- per month to each resprrndent as per the common order, dated lO.Ol.2022. H€) also submitted that due to the attachment of his retirement benefits, the petitioner is not getting pp which is required for alternative employment and also not getting any land from the

-_---.-.

:_-,)

,;-. K'r-.t

? 1rt

:u,1

State Government^{under Ex-servicemenQuota ' Therefore'he} prayed the Court^{to set aside the impugned orders'}

¶71

6.ontheotherhand,learnedcounselappearingon behalf of^{the responclents submittedthat the petitioner has not} complied^{with the orders, dated 16'11'2023 and lO'OL'2022'} It is further^{submittedthat the trial Court has also observed} that no^{preiudice will be caused to the case of petitioner} herein if^{the attachment of retirementbenefits is ordered' He} further^{submittedthat respondentNos'2 to 4 are not having} any source^{of income, therefore' there is no illegality in the} orders^{passed by the trial Court'Hence prayed to dismissthe} petitions.

¶72

Having^{regard to the submissions made by learned} counsel^{for the respective parties and on perusal of the} material^{availableon record' it is evident that Crl'M'P'No'102} of 2022^{in Crl.M'P'No '13 of 2O2O and Crl'P'No'103 of 2022 in} Crl.M.P.No.3^{of 2O2O in M'C'No'58of 2019 are filed by the} petitioner^{to reduce the maintenance amount from Rs'B'000/-} per month^{to Rs'5,000/-per month and the trial Court dismiss}

-l

g 5. lwo^{uu uopres}

7 .t

the same observing that the interim maintenance an)ount or Rs.8,000/- is a minimum amount, which cannot be reduced.

¶77

B. The contention of the petitioner is that exc:ept his pension, he has no other source of income and that he will get half of the basic salary i.e. Rs.42,O5O/_ as pension ,lmount which is very meagre to meet his needs and to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to confirm the order, dated ?-2.09.2015 passed by the Lieutenant Colonel. Whereas, the contention of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are school going children and according to lhe petitioner, he himself is having landed property, as such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the petitions.

¶78

The rec.ord shows that the petitioner has not filed any document before this Court to show that he is gettingr only pension of Rs.42,050/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court in awarding interim maintenance of Rs.8,0007_ per month to each respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the triar court has

¶79

¶80

"_*rs:-

¶81

-'*-:-)

&;*.,;

i. . i.

'-.11:I. rtttrar-'. :t}:a i. .rai

to decide the main M.C. after completion of the trial. As such, Criminal Petition No.1B70 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed.

¶90

Insofar as Criminal Petition No.1872 of 2024^is concerned, this Criminal Petition is filed only to avoid his liability to pay interim maintenance amount. The petitioner has applied for discharge from his services of Army and that the respondents-wife and children of the petitioner are entitled for the retirement benefits oF the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied the said contention stating that till date he has not applied for discharge from his service. The trial Court without considering the same, had observed that no prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioner herein, if the retirement benefits of the petitioner are attached till the disposal of the main case. Whereas the contention of the petitioner herein is that as per Section 60 of CPC retirement benefits cannot be attached except those benefits^which are not covered under Section 60 of CPC and also Section 11 of Indian Pension Act. It is further contended that in^view of the attachment of retirement benefits the^{petitioner is not getting} PP number which is required for alternative^employment and also he is not^getting agricultural^{land from} the^State

-1

Government under ex-service men quota, therefore, he prayed the Court to raise the attachment. Whereas the trial Court relied upon the judgment oF the Hon'ble Madras Court in Amrutha vs. Gunsekaran in Crl.R.C.No.l5O7 of 2O22 dated 23.72.2022, wherein it is observed that the maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as a debt and she is not a creditor. Hence, exemption under Section 11 of Pension Act, 1871 as well as the exemption provided in Section 60 (1) (g) of CpC, cannot be granted to husband.

¶96

Learned counsel for the respondents herein contended that if the terminal benefits are released, the respondents will be deprived of any source of income and that the pet:itioner will escape from his liability.

¶97

The question to be decided here is whetht:r the attachment of terminal benefits of the petitioner herein is proper. Perusal of record shows that attachment is ordered on the ground that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner contention is that if it is not rais;ed he will not get the benefits that will be given by the Goverrrment

¶98

¶99

¶100

and also alternative^employment and^{also it is difficultto him} to pay the maintenance^{to the} respondents'

¶101

In view of the above submissions^{made by both} learned counsel for the respective^{parties,it is clear that if the} retirement benefits are not^{released, the respondentscannot} get any maintenance amount from the^{petitioner.Therefore,} this Court deems it appropriate^{to disposeof Crl.P'No'1872 of} 2024 directing the trial^Court to^{raise the attachment order} subject to the condition of the^{petitioner furnishingan} undertaking to^pay the^{interimmaintenance amountregulariy} to the respondents. Further^{on condition to deposit the arrears} if any.

¶102

Accordingly, Criminal^{petition No.1870of 2024 is} dismissed and the Criminal^{Petition No.1872of 2024 is} disposed of.

¶103

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any, shall}

¶104

stand closed.

¶105

Sd/- MOHD.^ISMAIL ASSTSTANT^REGIS R

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

1 The Principal^{Districtand Sessions Judge cum Family Court'Medchal-} Malkajgiri^{at Malka,giri}

¶110

2 Two CCs^{to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana'} Hyderabad [OUT].

¶111

¶112

One CC to^{SRIVSRMV PrasadSanaka' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶113

4 One CC^{to SRI M. Ratan Singh' AdvocateTOPUCI}

¶114

b 5 Two CD^CoPies

ffi**&Xa'.'x*-d*^rx,

HIGH COURT

)

DATED:03110t2024

COMMON ORDER

()r- ,.r'L >1,(f .a ()A
2 3 CII 202[
....
\i-: -r,'
\F

¶123

CRLP.Nos.1870 and 1872 of 2024

¶124

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.NO.1870 OF 2024 &

¶125

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P.NO.1872 OF 2024 @Yr<sup>.! ry@-

Rapaka Mohana Rao v. The State ofTelangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rapaka Mohana Rao v. The State ofTelangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Nayeemulla and 3 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

K. Venkat Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Meesala Ramprasd Vs The State of Telangana

Katravath Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Rapaka Mohana Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Salman Khan Vs The State of Telangana