Partly allowed

Syed Ashfaq v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Oct 2024CRLRC/548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision under Section 151 CPC challenging a maintenance order. The Court held no interference with the Trial Court's finding of income but reduced the wife's maintenance from Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 7,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced to Rs. 7,000/month for wife; Rs. 6,000/month for minor child; Arrears to be paid within 3 months.

Syed Ashfaq Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 548 OF 2024

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Order dated 22.01.2024 passed in M.C. No. 782 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Syed Ashfaq, S/o. Syed Amjad, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Pvt. Service. R/o.^.lB- 2-39nnlN1, G.M. Colony, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.,..Petitioner/Respondent

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶11

2- Sumaiya Yaseen Junaidi, Wo. Syed Ashfaq, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Household, Rl o, 17 -84621 D I 1 2, B agh-E-Jahara, Dabeerpupra, Hyderabad.

¶12

Syed Furgan, Sio. Syed Ashfaq. Aged about 3 years, Occ. Nil Rio. 17-B462lDl 12, Bagh-E-Jahna, Dabeerpupra, Hyderabad.

¶13

Respondent No. 3 is a minor and represented by his mother and natural guardian i.e., the respondent No.2 ...Respondents/Petitioners

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in M.C.No. 782 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad dt. 24-1-2024, against the petitioner, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. Sharan Reddy

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri E. Ganesh Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Ms. P. Suhasini Reddy, learned Amicus Curie

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.548 OF 2o.24

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by petitioner_ respondent under Sections 397 and 401 of the (lode of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.CJ aggrieved by tJ-re Order dated 22.01.2024 passed in M.C.No.782 of 2022 (for short^,impugned Order) by the learned Judge, principal Family Court _cum- XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderrabad (for short, "the learned trial Court").

¶23

Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor for the State_ respondent No.1 and Ms.P.Suhasini Reddy, learnr:d Amicrrs Curie appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and :i. pertLsed the materials placed on record.

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that the rnarriage of the respondent No.1 and petitioner was perform ed on.2O.O2.2O2O at Hyderabad as per Muslim rites and customs. It is; stated that as per demarrd of the petitioner and his family memtrers, parents of respondent No.2 presented Rs.1,0O,O0O/- cash, gold jewellery,

¶25

¶26

silver and furniture towards^{dowry.After themarriage'} respondent No.2^{joined with the company of the petitioner'} Within few days after the^{marriage,petitionerand his family} members started^{harassingher physically and mentally and the} mother and sister of the^{petitioner took the gold jewellery of} respondent No.2 and kept in^{their custody. On O2'I2'2O2O,} petitioner and respondent^{No'2 blessedwith a male child' It is} further submitted that^{the petitioner harassed her by suspecting} her character and^{demanding additional dowry' On L5'O7'2021,} petitioner and his family^{members picked upquarrel with} respondent No.2 for^{additionaldowry ofRs'5,00,000/-and} necked out respondent^{Nos.2 and 3 from the house' Respondent} No.2 being a lady^{with small child and depending upon her} parents, the petitioner is^{working inMNCcompanywith a} monthly salary of^{Rs.SO,0OO/- per month artdgetting} Rs.40,000/- per month^{towards rent, respohdent No'2 filed} maintenance case vide^{M.C No.782 0f 2022 before the trial court} seeking maintenance^{of Rs.5O,0OO/-per monthi}

¶27

The learned trial Court^{vide impugnedOrder granted} maintenance of Rs.8,OOO/-^{per month to the respondent No'2} and Rs.6,00O/-^{permonth to the respondentNo'3 from the} ,t )

¶28

¶29

petitioner and petitioner shall deposit the monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every month. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has been brought to the notice of the trial Court that the pe.titioner is earning Rs.80,000/- per month. It is also adrnitted before the tria,l Court that the petitioner used to work as Tele Caller till 2O2O and due to Covid-19 lock down, he lost his job. He further stated that respondent No.2 is working as a teacher ard drawrng salary of Rs.2O,OOO/-. Therefore, he seeks to set asirle the impugned order.

¶31

Learned Amicus Curies appearing for unofficial respondents opposing the same submitted that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the respondents. The trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶32

7 . In view of the facts and circumstances of the ,.:ase and considering the submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court rightly passecl the irnpugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the petitioner

¶33

I I

¶34

¶35

and the living standards^{of the people in the present day society'} Challenging such a^{meageramount is not permissibleat this} stage, as the^{costsof living standards of the people havebeen} esca-lated to a iarger extent.^{Hence, I find no reasonto interfere} with the order passed^by the^{tria-l Court. However,in view of the} facts and circumstances^{of the case, this Court is inclinedto} reduce the maintenance^{awardedto the respondent No ' Ifrom} Rs.'8,0O0/- per month to^{Rs.7,OOO/-per month, upholdingthe} maintenance awarded^{to the respondent No.3.}

¶36

Accordingly, the Crimina-l^{RevisionCase is disposedof and} the impugned order^{dated 22.O1.2024 passedin M'C'No'782 of} 2022 by the learned Judge,^{PrincipalFamily Court -cum- XIII} Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,is hereby} modified directing^{the petitioner} -^{husband to pay a sum of} Rs.7,OOO/- per month^{toin'ards maintenanceto respondentNo'2} and Rs.6,000 /-^{per month tou'ards maintenartceto respondent} No.3 totaling Rs.^{13,OOO/-per monthtowardstheir maintenance} from the date of filing^{of petition andsha-llalso continue to pay} future maintenance on^{or before l0th of every succeeding month'} The respondent shall^{also pay the arrears of maintenance within} three months, from^{the date of this order'Upon such deposit'}

¶37

I )

¶38

¶39

the respondent^Nos.2 and^{3 are directedto deposit the sameto} the satisfaction of the learned^{Judge,PrincipalFamily Court} -

¶40

cum- XIII Additional^{MetropolitanSessions Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶41

Asa sequel, miscellaneous applications,^{pending ifany,}

¶42

shall stald closed.

¶43

//TRUE^COPY//

¶44

Sd/. T. KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶45

1\t

¶46

SECTION^OFFICER

¶47

To, 1 The Judge,^{Principal Family Court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan} Sessions^{Judge, HYderabad'} n'gh Court^{for the state of Telanganaat}

¶48

2 Two CCs^{to Public} "'ot"J'itII Hvderabad^(OUT)

¶49

). ljl'. cCi"^{sr.i C. Sharan Reddv' Advocatetofugf} 4. one CC^{to Ms P Sufraslni neOdy' learned Amicus Curie [OPUC]} E Two CD^CoPies

DLigh

f'*D .t-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2111012024

ORDER

( q, rH!: S14 16.
(
o?
12 | ;. lulJ
4.o
A o€sr.,4,CHE0 t

¶56

CRLRC.No.548 of 2024

¶57

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISPOSED OF

¶58

Syed Ashfaq v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ashfaq 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Malluvalasa John Vs Smt. Mekala Rudhraksha Veni

Ghattupalli @ Golla Suresh, Vs The State of Telangana

Rathod Lalu Singh , Lalu Vs the State of a.P., Throug the Sho., P.S.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mrs. B. Vasanthi, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Mrs. B.Vasanthi, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another