Allowed

Satla Sri Sri v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024CRLRC/528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision disposed of a family court order granting insufficient maintenance. Enhancing the monthly support for a wife suffering from asthma and minor children, directing the respondent to pay arrears and the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance enhanced to Rs. 7,500/- per month for petitioner and Rs. 7,500/- per month for each daughter; respondent to deposit arrears.

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^329e ]

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTI.I DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 528OF 2024

¶8

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 17 -08-2023 made in M.C.No.11 o't 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Nalgonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Satla Sri Sri, Wo. Sri.Satla Sridhar Goud, Age 46 years, Occ. House Wife

¶11

Satla Sharvani, D/o. Satla Sridhar Goud, Age 13 years, Occ. Student

¶12

Satla lpsita, D/o. Satla Sridhar Goud, Age 13 years, Occ. Student (Petitioner No.2 & 3 being Minor, Rep by its mother Natural Guardian i.e Petitioner No. t )

¶13

All are R/o.H.No.6-B- 192, Hanuman Nagar, Near China Venkat Reddy Function Hall, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District

¶14

...Petitioners / Petitioners

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, H(7h Court Buildings, Hyderabad

¶17

...1"t Respondent

¶18

Satla Sridhar Goud, S/o. Satla Dashartham, R/o. Flat No.201, H.No.11-3-293 Sai Tripura Residency, Srinivasa Nagar, Secunderabad

¶19

...Respondent No 2 / Respondenb

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 3Bg (1) & 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order d1.09.12.2024 in M.C. No.11 of 2021^passed by the Hon'ble Family Court Judge and to continue earlier Order^passed by the

¶22

.S.

¶23

Hon'ble Family Court Judge, Nalgonda in Crl.M.P. No. 24 of 2023 in M.C.No.11 of 2021 d1.11.07.2023, pending disposal of revision petition in the interest of justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Mohd Baseer Riyaz Counsel for the Respondent No 1 Sri E Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No 2 Ms Yogitha Prakash Amicus Curiae

¶25

The Court made the following Order :

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JTISTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No. 524 OF 2024

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 09.02.2024 in M.C.No. ll of 2O2l passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda (for short, "the trial Court").

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State. Ms. Yogitha Prakash, learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.l is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and their marriage was performed on O6.05.2007 as per rites and customs prevailed in their community. They were blessed with petitioner Nos.2 and 3, Thereafter, respondent No.2 and his fa.mily harassed petitioner No.1 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. During the 2"d week of August, 2Ol8 the respondent No.l and his parents physia,ally assaulted petitioner No.l and her two

¶31

¶32

(:,1.R-C No.t26 of 2024

¶33

daughters and since then petitioner No.l and her two daughters had been residing with her parents. Unable to bear such hzrrassment, petitioner No.1 was constrained to lodge a report before Women Police Station Nalgonda. Basing on the said report, a case in Cr.No.26 of 202 I was registered against respondent No.2 for the olfences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IpC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶34

As respondent No.2 failed to provide maintenance, petitioner No.l filed M.C.No.1l of 2O2l before the trial Court seeking maintenance @ Rs. 1S,OOO/- per month to petitioner No 1 and Rs. 1O,OO0/- per month each 1o her daughters i.c., petitioner Nos.2 and 3. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the oral and documen tary evidence available . on record, the trial Court vide order dated 09.O2.2O24 partly allowed M.C.No.1 L of 2O2l granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.S,0OO/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.3,000/_ per month ea<:h to petitioner Nos.2 ald 3 from the date of the order. Agglrieved by the said order dated 09.02.2024,

¶35

¶36

EW,J Crt.R.C.No.52A oI2O2a

¶37

the petitioners have filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial Court erred in awarding a meager amount towards maintenance. He further contended that the petitioner No.I is a housewife and suffering from Bronchial Asthama and she is on medication and taking care of her two daughters and on the other hand, though the respondent No.2 is an S.G.T Government Teacher, he neglected the petitioners. He relied upon the decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in Babita Bisht us Dharrnend,er Singh Bisht, in uhich it is obserued that sustenance, do not necessaily mean to lead the life of an animal. The wife is entitled in laut to lead a life in th.e similar manner as sh.e would haue liued in th.e Lnuse of her husband and that the husband cannot depiue Ler of the benefit of liuing with dignitg. He further contended that the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order solely basing on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, he seeks to enhance the maintenance.

¶39

8.'.1,1:.^/ CIL.R^{C.No526of 2024}

¶40

¶41

6 On the^{o1'her hand,despiteservice of notice there was} No.2,^{as such} no appearance^{on behalf of respondent} Amicus^{Curiae is appointedby this Court'} She contended the oral^and that the^{tria'l Court after appreciating} documentary^{evidence availableonrecord inproper} perspective,^{rightly passedtheimpugnedorder and} interference^{of this Court with the same is unwarranted'} She, therefore,^{sought fordismissalof theCriminal} Revision^Cast:'

¶42

A perus;al^{of record shows that on behalf of petitroner} No.1, she^{hLerself was examined as PWl and marked} Exs.PltoP3.onbehalfofrespondentNo.2nonewere examined^{an.d no documentsmarked'}

¶43

B. Upon careful^{scrutiny of the' materialavailableon} record,^{the trial Court observed that petitioner No' 1 had no} source^{of income of her own for eking out her livelihoodas} well as^{her minor daughters' Moreover'respondent No'2 is} a Government^{School Teacherand earning Rs'8o,OO0/-Per} month.^{Therefore, upon considering theincome of}

¶44

¶45

¶46

EW,J Crl.R.C No.528 of2O24

¶47

I I

¶48

respondent No.2 the trial Court rendered the impugned order.

¶49

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Amicus Curiae to respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court erroneously passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the income of respondent No.2 and the living standards of the people in the present day society. Challenging such a meager amount is permissible as the costs of living standards of the people have escalated to a greater extent. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to increase the maintenance awarded to petitioner No. 1 from Rs.5,OO0/- to Rs.7,5OO/- per month and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from Rs.3,0OO/- to Rs.7,5OO/- each per month to meet the ends of justice.

¶50

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance if any u,ithin a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall continue to

¶51

EW..1 CrL.R.C.No.5)a of 202a

¶52

¶53

pay the enhanced maintenance arnount awarded by this

¶54

Court on or before lOth of every succeeding month

¶55

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUWFEG-ISTRAR )

¶59

SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

'1 . The Judge, Family Court, Nalgonda

¶62

The Member {}ecretary,^{Telangana State Legal ServicesAuthority,High Court} for the State of Telangana at^Hyderabad

¶63

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

¶64

One CC to^lvts Yogita^{Prakash, Amicus Curiae} [OUT]

¶65

One CC to Sri Mohd^{Baseer Riyaz,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶66

Two CD Copies

VA/gh

I , , ,

HIGH COURT

DATED : 1 211212024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.528 of 2024

1i:- ljI 4I€
o
a. $
(
r
?
c(i
$ 7 JAl{ 2025 a,
..t
t
D&spa TC\ rig

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE GRLRC
O*(''
%,€

Satla Sri Sri v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satla Sri Sri v. 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

Y.Rama Krishna, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Smt. Md.Chathabee, Vs Md.Yakub

P.Ananda Rao Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp and Another

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another

Rajnikanth Reddy Siddenki, Usa, Rep by Father, R.R.Dt., Vs the State of Ap., through Pp., and 2 Others.