Dismissed

Shaik Hidayath v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Nov 2024CRLRC/597/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed by a husband against a maintenance order passed in his favour by the HO (the trial court mischaracterised it as husband to wife). The High Court modified the maintenance amounts based on income evidence and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance quantified at Rs. 10,000 monthly for wife and Rs. 8,000 for son; arrears to be deposited.

Shaik Hidayath Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

\ a-.'-"

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 597 OF 2024

¶8

Criminal Case tlnder Sections 397 a d 401 of Cr.P.G against the Order made in M.C.No.638 ol 2O22 (Old M.C.No.'|64 of 2018) dated 22.03.2O24 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional Family Court Cum XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Givil Court, Hyderabad. Between:

¶9

Shaik Hidayath, S/o Shaik Bhikari, Aged 38 years, Occ. Pvt Serivce, Presently R/o Plot No 68, 15 cross Neeldadri Nagar, Electornic City, Bangalore Permanent Resident of BC Colony, Masjid Street, Muthukur, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh. ...REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep- by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶12

Shaik Asma, Wo Shaik Hidayath, Aged 32 years, Occ. Household. 3. F aiz Hannan Mohammed, S/o Shaik Hidayath, Aged B years, Occ. Student. (Respondents No 3 is a minor Rep. by their mother Natural guardian petitioner No'2)

¶13

...RES'.NDENTS/,ET,,.NERS

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section 151 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 order dated 221O312024 passed in M.C No.63B ol 2022 (Old M.C. No. 164 of 2018) on the file of the ll Additional Faimily Court-Cum-Xv Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.T. Siva Seshu, representing SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The. Coirt made the following: ORDER

,*7

THE HONOTIRABLE SRI JUSTTCE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISTON CASE No.597 oF 2o24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The prersent Criminal Revision Case is liled ag.rin st the order dated 22.03.2024 in M.C.No.638 of 2022 (old M.C.No.164 ol 2O18) passed by the learned II Additronal Family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the, trial Court").

¶25

Heard Mr. J.T. Siva Seshu, learne.d counsei representing on behalf of petitioner/ husband ancl Mr. tr. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosec,_rtor appearing for respondent No.1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3/u.ife and son respectively. Pr:rused the record.

¶26

The per:itioner herein is responden l/husband, R t herein is Sitate and R2 herein is petitioner. No. 1 /,rife and R3 herein is petitioner No.2/son in M.C.No.638 of 2022 (old M.C.No. 164 of 2018) before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referrecl to

¶27

r'nl)I

¶28

¶29

EW-I Crt R.C No.ss7 oI2O;a

¶30

ii il

¶31

as they were arrayed in M.C.No.638 of 2022 (otd M.C.No. 164 of 20tB)

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/wife the legally wedded wife of respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 16.O2.2O15 as per the Muslim Personal Law at Nellore District. During the wedlock, they were blessed with one son and she was carrying her ss66n6 pregnancy by the time of filing maintenalce case. Thereafter, respondent/husbaad harasse d petitioner/wife mentally and ph.ysicaJly for want of additiq-nal dowry and necked out the petitioner/wife from the matrimonial home. Ever-since, the petitioner/wife had been living along with her parents and due to age old ailments of her parents and having unable to maintain herself, rhe peritioner/wife filed a petition under Sec tion 125 Cr.p.C seeking maintenance of Rs.30,00O /_ per month to her and Rs.2O,0 OO/_ p., month to her son in l "'o^{638 of 2022@ld M'c'No'164} of 2O18)on the ,,r" o,* I triai Court. The trial Court having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence available on record, vide Order

EW,.l

\ )

L')I R.( I'o.19. oI2O)a

¶41

dated 22.O3.2tO24 in M.C.No.638 of 2O22 (otd M.C.Ncr.164 of 2018), partly allowed the petition directing the respondent/ husband to pay an amount of Rs. 12,000/ _ per month to petir,ioner No.1/wife and Rs.B,00O/_ per month to petitioner No.:2/son towards maintenance from the date of the order on or before Sth day of every month including arrears of milintenance if any within a per.iod of trn,o months. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/husband has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶42

Despite receipt of notice there is no appearance on behalf of respo ndent Nos.2 and 3.

¶43

Learned r:ounsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the petitioner is willing to take care of respondent Nos.2 and 3 trut for not shifting from Bangalore to Hyderabad, res;pondent No.2/wife starting harassing the petitioner for not fulfilling her wish and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home in Bangalore along with respondent No.3 and started living with her parents at Hyderabad and u,ithout consiclering the said fact, the trial Cotrrt erroneously gav,3 a !ing that it is the fundamental dtrty

¶44

{

¶45

¶46

EVV"I CrLR C.No.5A7 of2024

¶47

of the husband to maintain the wife and children and accordingly, awarded maintenance of Rs. |2,OOO l- and Rs.S,O0O/ per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3/'*'ife and son He further contended that the petitioner lost his^job and has no source of income of his own as of now^to comply with the order passed by the learned trial Court He further submits that learned trial Court erred relying on the old IT returns of Assessment Year 2O2l-22^for deterrnining the income of the petitioner in the^year 2024, which is arbitrary as the petitioner is^presentiy doing^free lance works to eke out his livelihood. He further contended that the petitioner 1S ready and willing to maintain respondent No.2 and his children unconditionally but^the respondent No.2/wife is not willing to^join the^petitioner herein He therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 22.O3.2024

¶48

On the other hand, the learned Assistant^Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court, after^appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in^{proper perspective,} rightly passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2024^and

¶49

¶50

EW,J C4 R.a.|'to -;9^, af 2024

¶51

\ \

¶52

interference of this Court is unwarranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminat Revision Case

¶53

A perusal of the record reveals that on trehalf of the peti tioner/ u,ifr:, the petitioner herself was examined as pW1 and Exs.p1 to p5 were marked on her behalf. On behalf of the responderrt/ husband, he was examined as RWl and got marked trxs.R1 to R6 on his behalf.

¶54

9 . Upon caLreful scrutiny of oral and documentary. evidence available on record, the trial Corrrt rigl-rtly observed that the respondent/husbald had u,illfully neglected the p,etitioner Nos. I and 2/wife and son u,ithout any reasonable cause. However, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner served notice on respondent No.2 and despite receipt of notice there is no representatron on behalf ol responclent No.2 and taking to consideration the submission macle by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitio.er is working as a free rancer, this cou:rt deems it approp:iate to reduce maintenance of Rs.12,OO0/to Rs. 10,OO0/per month to respondent No.2/rnife and Rs.8,000/- per month awarded to respondent No.3/son

¶55

Crl-R C.No 597 of 2024

¶56

remains unchanged. The revision petitioner/husband is directed to deposit the arrears accrued if any to the savings account of respondent No.2/wife with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶57

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is

¶58

d ismissed.

¶59

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶60

closed.

¶61

Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

sEcTro OFFICER

¶64

To, 1 lhg l! Additional Famiry court cum XV Additionar Metroporitan sessions _^{J_u099, KatpataruComplex City Civil} Court Hvderabad ? 9nu 99^{tg Sl Rajagopailavan-Tayi, Advocat'e (OPUC)} 3. lwo CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hia,h Court for the Statb of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶65

Two CD Copies

Ks/gh

.::.,,.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2711112024

1 He SI A16
(
!)) 2 ll F t'd ?J25 r)7
t OtrSP^ ii. '

¶75

ORDER

¶76

CRLRC.No.597 of 2024

¶77

Dismissing the Crt.R.C

¶78

+-coP(4' Yt^ f*{'P

Shaik Hidayath v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Hidayath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D. Mohan , Vs the State of a.P., Rpe by Pp.

M/S. S.Poli Naidu Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Pasumarthi Vykuntadhar Rao , Vykuntam, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

K. Anish Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy Vs Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha

V.Shoba Vs the State of A.P. and Another