Allowed

Afsar Unnisa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jan 2024CRLP/4488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife and minor son sought enhancement of interim maintenance fixed by the Family Court at Rs.5,000 each per month. The High Court set aside the trial Court's interim maintenance order and directed it to reconsider the matter expeditiously following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12-12-2022 in Crl.M.P.No.153 of 2022 in M.C.No.143 of 2022 set aside; trial Court directed to reconsider interim maintenance per Rajnesh v. Neha within one month.

Afsar Unnisa Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4488 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Afsar Unnisa, Dio. Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Aged^{about29 years,} Occupation. Household,

¶10

Mohd Abubakar Ali, S/o. Mohd. Arif Ali, Aged about 7^{years, Occupation.} Student,

¶11

[the^{2ndPetitioner being. minor, rep.,by his motherand naturalguardian,} AFSAR UNNISA, the 1st Petitioner hereinl

¶12

Both the Petitioners herein are residents of H. No. 53/8,^{IVIIGH,Saidabad,} Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, T.S

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor in the^{High Court of} For the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad T.S.,

¶16

...RESPONDENT No.1

¶17

2 Mr. Mohammed Arif Ali, S/o. Mr. Mohammed Jahangir^{Ali Aged about 37} years, Occupation. Business, R/o. H. No. 18-14231113119, Near Masjid-EMohammadia, Phool Bagh, Chandrayang utta, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENT No. 2/RESPONDENT

¶19

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 Modify the Order dated 12-12-2022,^{passedin M.P. No. 153 of} 2022, in M.C. No. 143 of 2022, by the Judge, I Additional^{Family Court,at} Hyderabad, and consequently direct the Respondent to^{pay interim maintenance} amounting Rs. 80,000^per month to both the Petitioners,^{viz., Rs. 50,000per} month to 1st. Petitioner and Rs. 30,000/-^per month, to the^{2nd Petitioner, from} the date of Petition, i.e.,27-04-2019 till the disposal^{of the main Maintenance} Case i.e., M.C. No. 143 of .2022.

¶20

{

¶21

This Petition^{comingon for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds^{of Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of STi S MOHD} ABDULRAHEEMKHAN,AdvocateforthePetitionerandthePublicProsecutor on behalf^{of the RespondentNo. 1 and of Sri' MD SHAIFIUDDIN' Advocatefor} the ResPondent^{No. 2}

¶22

The Gourt^{made the following:ORDER}

¶23

,//

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4488 of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

In this Criminal Petition, the petitioners i.e. the wife and son of the 2"d respondent are chalienging the order of the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.153 of 2022 in M.C.No.143 of 2022. Where under, the trial Court has fixed the Interim Maintenance at Rs.5,000 f - to each of the petitioners herein. The petitioners are seeking enhancemer-rt of the SAINC

¶27

2 On going through the material on record, it^is noticed that the petitioners have claimed around Rs.80,000/- as maintenance p.m. i.e, Rs.50,000/- to^the 1st petitioner and Rs.3O,O00/- to the 2nd^petitioner. Whereas, the trial Court has granted only a^{sum of} Rs.5,O00/- p.m. to each of the^petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted^that the 2'a respondent is a Software Engineer^{and is also doing} business and is earning good income^{and it ishis} responsibility to disclose all the facts relating^{to his source} of income, white filing the statement of assets^and tiaBlities bcfore the trial Court. It is submitted^{that the}

¶29

I i I :ll i

¶30

I I I ; i I ]: l I il i I * I T I { d! I I 4 I II l ti I {

¶31

¶32

respondent No.2 has failed^{to give all the details and the} Court below has considered^{only the information furnished} by the respondent and has^{shifted the burdenof giving} such information about the^{respondenton tothe} petitioners i.e. to prove the^{source of income of the} respondent No.2 and has^{fixed only alamount of} Rs.5,OOO/ - to each of the^{petitioners herein'}

¶33

It is submitted that petitioner^{No.2 is studyingin a} school ald the minimum^{fee along with the transportation} itself amounts to more than^{Rs.6,O0O and therefore, the} sum granted by the trial Court^{for interim maintenance of} petitioner No.2 is not sufltcient for^even his^{educationleave} alone other expenditure. It is submitted^{that the Hon'lcle} Supreme Court in the case of^{Rainesh Vs. Neha &} anotherl has given detailed^{guidelines and the pointsto} be considered by the Courts^{while grantinginterim} maintenance to the wife or a child. It is^{submitted ttrat} there are various heads under^{which the grantingof} maintenance should be considered and^{the Court below} has failed to consider aly of the said heads.^Therefore,he is seeking enhancement of the maintenance^{granted by the} trial Court.

'^{(202t) z scc a24}

I t

i I I i

I I

I I

Learned counsel appearing for the^{respondents,in} support of the averments^made by the^{respondentNo.2 in} the counter affrdavit submitted^{that the petitionershave} not given the details of source of income of^respondent No.2 and therefore, the Court below has rightly^{fixed the} interim maintenalce of Rs.5,O0O/- to^{each ofthe} petitioners.

¶40

Having regard to the rival contentions and^the material on record, this Court finds that^{the interim} maintenance has to be grarted to the^{petitioners herein} according to their needs and the^{income of the respondent.} The trial Court is therefore directed to^{look into all the} aspects and needs of the^petitioners including^{the income,} assets and liabilities of the respondent^{No.2 even while} granting the interim maintenance. to the^{petitioners.It is} the responsibility of the respondent^{No.2 to give all the} facts before the Court beiow.

¶41

In view of the above facts and that^{the issue of} interim maintenance is based on^{certain facts and} circumstances and this Court^{cannot ascertainthe actual} needs of the petitioners at this^{stage, this Courtdeems it} fit and proper to set aside^{the orderdated12 -12.2022} passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.153^{of 2022 rn}

¶42

¶43

M.C.No. 143 of 2022 and directs the trial Court to reconsider the issue expeditiously by following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & another (Supra) arrd grant interim maintenance to the petitioners, in accordance with the same, by passing al order within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶45

Miscellaleous applications pending, if my,

¶46

shall stand closed.

¶47

Sd,. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

.,ti

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To, 1. The Judqe, I Additional Family Court' at Hy-derabad ; i;; icxi" in"^{pruri" p;o"3;t,;'ir;drr bourt for the stateof relansana at} Hvderabad. [OUT] 3. ijl,;"bCi;^{Snr. d rtrono ABDUL RAHEEM KHAN.Advocate[oPUC]} ;. 5;; dc ii sni^{rvto. sHAFluDDlN,AdvocateIoPUcl}

¶53

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810112024

ORDER

1 $e s?^re
e
or)5 09 JAl,l 2024 .L

D olr.'i e

CRLP.No.4488 of 2023

ALLOWING THE

CRIMINAL PETITION

<br>

Afsar Unnisa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsar Unnisa v. The State of Telangana

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

Smt. Ramadas Pally Madhuri Vs The State of Telangana

Ganta Polli Reddy Vs Madhuvani Kakarla

Katikam Srinivas Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Zaheer Osman Ahmed AlGeelani @ Syed Waseem Ali Vs State of Telangana

V. Sujatha Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Pavan Kalyan Vs The State of Telangana