Dismissed

Dasari Sudhakar v. Dasari Prasanna Kumari

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024CRLRC/640/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision challenging a Section 125 CrPC order awarding Rs.10,000 per month each to a wife and minor daughter. The husband argued the wife was an earning advocate. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Arrears of maintenance to be computed per trial court order dated 10.06.2023 and paid to respondents 1 and 2 within two years.

Dasari Sudhakar Vs Dasari Prasanna Kumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 640 OF 2023

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 4O1 of Cr.P.C., against the Order dated 10.06.2023 passed in M.C.No. 28 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Medchal - N/alka.igiri District at Medchal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Sudhakar, S/o. Saheb, Aged about. 40 Yrs, Occ. Pvt Employee,^R/o. H.No.36/a-63, A Block Road No.3, Papireddy Nagar, Opp. Luthern Church, Jeedimetla, Quatubulapur Mandal Ranga Reddy District

¶10

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Dasari Prasanna Kumari, Wo. Dasari Sudhakar, Aged About 31 Years, Occ. Household,

¶13

Dasari Sanjeevani Sudha, D/o. D. Sudhakar, Aged About 4^years, Occ. Child, Both R/o, H.No.9-25, Gudenmet, Opp. IDPL colony Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.District R2 minor, rep. by its natural^guardian

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its P.P High court of T.S.Hyd.

¶15

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 397(1) of Cr.P-C.,^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be} pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 10/06/2023,^passed in M.C.No. 28 of 2022 on the file of ll Additional District Judge,^{Medchal-MalkajigiriDistrict at} Medchal, pending disposal of the Revision.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be} pleased to direct the revision petitioner to surrender his Passport before this Hon'ble Court in Crl.RC No. 640 of 2023 till finalization^{of all the criminalcases}

¶20

--v

¶21

¶22

pending in between revision petitioner and respondent 1 & 2 pending disposal of the CrlRc No. 640 of 2023

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Radha Krishna

¶24

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : M/s. Dasari Prasanna Kumari, Party-inperson representing Sri Sandeep Pilli

¶25

Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Public Prosecutor

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶30

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.64O OF 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner (husband) and respondent No. 1(wife)/ party-in-person and perused the material placed on record.

¶33

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the impugned order dated 1O.06.2023, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Medchal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), in M.C.No.2S of 2022 filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') whereby respondent Nos.l and 2 were awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1O,OO0/- each per month, which is payable on 10e day of each month from the date of filing of the said application.

¶34

The factual matrix of the case relevant for the present Criminal Revision is that the marriage of respondent No.1 (wife) was performed with the petitioner (husband) on 07. 10.2011 as per the customs of Christian Community and at the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.l gave a sum of Rs.3,50,00O/- cash, gold and household articles to the petitioner towards dowry. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child (respondent No.2 herein). Thereafter, the petitioner started harassing respondent

No.l rvith the active instigation of his mother and sister, both physically and mentally for rvant of additional dowry of Rs. 1,0O,O00/-. Orving to the unbearable harassment meted out to respondent No.1 by the petitioner, respondent No. I along with her minor daughter (respondent No.2) went to the house of her parents. The petitioner is working as a Software Engineer at Aditya Constructions and earning a sum of Rs.75,O0O/- per month and he is having movable and immoveable properties and he has suffrcient means to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.

¶39

The petitioner herein appeared and frled counter before the Trial Court, wherein, he stated that respondent No. 1 is falsely levelling charges against him, which are unfounded. Respondent No. I was herself coercing him physically and mentally. In fact respondent No.l intends to put up separate family by leaving his parents, so that respondent No. 1 can rule her matrimonial home.

¶40

In course of hearing, the wife (respondent No.l) examined as PW. 1 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.28 and the husband (petitioner) examined as RW. 1 and got marked Exs.R. I to R.9, whereby, they supported their respective pleadings.

¶41

Considering the evidence adduced during hearing and appreciating the evidence in the light of pleadings of the parties, the learned rrial court allowed the maintenance petition of respondent

¶42

.: ia. *.-ta/' ,/

¶43

-:)

¶44

Nos. I and 2 for Rs.50,0OO/-, which was disbursed to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 as monthly maintenance awardable to them by the petitioner herein vide impugned order dated 10.06.2023.

¶45

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has taken stand in the present revision petition that respondent No. 1 is a practicing Advocate and she is having gas agency in H.No.9-25 and she is earning a sum of Rs.50,O0O/- per month and that the true purport of the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is predicted on two conditions i) husband has sufficient means and ii) 'neglects' to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. He placed reliance on the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Rajnesh u. Nehrrl.

¶46

B. Per contra, respondent No. 1 / party-in-person submitted that her daughter (respondent No.2) is aged about 6 years old, therefore, they are in need of maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner is working as Soft *'are Engineer earning a sum of Rs. 1,5O,0OO/- per month and he has sufficient means to maintain them. There is no infrrmity, irregularity or illegality in impugned order passed by the Trial Court and the same is liable to be affirmed in the present

¶47

revision. Respondent No. t herself bears tuition fee of her child.

¶48

' {2o2r)^{2 scc 32}

¶49

¶50

Having regard to the evidence of respondent No.l-wife before the Trial Court and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the petitioner had sufficient source of income and was able bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶51

Thus, in the light of pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of Judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.1 is earning a sum of Rs.SO,OOO/- per month and practicing as an Advocate and she has sufhcient means to maintain herself and the child, and she is not entitled for aly maintenance, is being devoid of merits since no piece of proof has been produced before the Court and that the petitioner may not be saddled with liability to maintain his wife and child, is not tenabie. In the same vein, the respondentNos. 1 and 2 will not be deprived of the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court.

¶52

1 1. After meticulously anaJynng the entire facts and circumstances of the case on hand, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffers from any inlirmity or illegality and it is sustainable under law. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is liabie to be dismissed.

¶53

¶54

Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The arrears of maintenance will be computed in terms of the Order dated 10.06.2023 passed by the Trial Court and the same w.ill be payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of two (O2) years from the date of this order.

¶55

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE N OFFICER

To,

1 The ll Additional District Judge, Medchal -^{Malkajgiri District at Medchal.} 2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High^{Court for the State of Telangana at} Hvderabad. [OUTI 3 Oire CC to Sri lr/.'Radha Krishna,^Advocate IOPUCI 4 One CC to Sri Sandeep Pilli,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to M/s. Dasari Prasanna^{Kumaii, Party-in-person,Advocate} [OPUC] 6 Two CD Copies Nib/gh

$*-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912024

ORDER

'( T.t S I A ra
(
D7
? 4 iAl| 2025 C
'J D t
I
1

¶68

CRLRC.No.640 of 2023

¶69

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶70

?e
I

Dasari Sudhakar v. Dasari Prasanna Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Sudhakar v. Dasari Prasanna Kumari

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. Potukuchi Pushya Vs The State of the Telangana

Parle Agro Vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept. Hyd., and Another

Mokalla Ravi and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

J.S.R. Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

The Deputy Commissioner Vs State of Telangana

Janumpally Sudharshan Vs The State of Telangana