Partly allowed

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy v. Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha

Telangana HC27 Nov 2024CRLRC/643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Case No. 643 of 2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana reviewed a Family Court order granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 18,000 to a wife and daughter. Considering the husband's pension and property acquisition for the wife, the Court reduced maintenance to Rs. 17,000 per month.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance reduced from Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month; directions to deposit arrears in wife's savings account.

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy Vs Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 643 OF 2024

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and⁴⁰¹ of^Cr.PCagainst the Judgment dated 13.02.2024 made in M.C.No¹⁷³ ol^{2017 on the file of the} Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy^{at L.B.Nagar.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bujala Sreenrvas Reddy. S/o Bujala Ram Reddy, Aged^{43 years,Occ. lndian} Army Soldier, R/o Gunduru Vilalge, Kalwakurthy tVandal,^{Nagar Kurnool} District.

¶10

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Pavani @ Rajitha, W/o B. Sreenivas Reddy.^{Aged about31 years,Occ.} House wife, R/o Plot No. 141, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Road^No-2, Hastinapuram South, R.R. District.

¶13

B.Sakshi, D/o. B.srinivas Reddy, Aged about^{'13 years, Occ. Student, R/o Plot} No. 141, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Road No.2, Hastinapuram South,^R.R. District.

¶14

The State of Telangana. Rep. by the^{Public Prosecutor, High Court of} Telangana, at Hyderabad

¶15

... Respondents/Petitioners

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 482 ot 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 suspend the operataon of the order passed in M.C-No.173 of 20'17' D1j3.022024 on the file of the Additional^{Family Court. Ranga Reddyat} L.B.Nagar.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Anirudh Sadhu

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri K Sreenivas

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

I I

¶23

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.643 0F 2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated I3.O2.2O24 in M.C.No. t73 of 2Ot7 passed by the lear-ned Judge, Additional Family Courr, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for shorr,^,,the trial Court").

¶27

Heard Mr. Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Sreenivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. i and 2 and Mr.li.Garlesh, learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3/State. perused the record.

¶28

The petitioner herein is respondent and respondent No.l herein is petitioner No.l and respondent No.2 herein is petitioner No.2 in M.C.No. lT3 of 2017 before the trial Court,

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in M.C.No. 173 of ,2OlT.

¶30

¶31

¶32

EW,J Crl.R.C.No.6a3 of 2024

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.l/wife is the legally wedded wife of respondent/husband and their marriage was solemnized on 26.O5.2O1O as per Hindu customs and rites at Kalwakurthy Village and Mandal. During the wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter. Thereafter, respondent/husband harassed petitioner No. i /wife mentally and physically for no reason. Ever_since she became pregnant, she was living with her parents, she was subjected to harassment by her husband, his parents and sisters. Having vexed with her life, she tried to commit suicide and hospitalized- Even then, her husband refused to maintain her as well as their daughter. Being unable to maintain themselves, the petitioner No. 1/wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.p.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.2O,OOO/- per month to her and Rs.lO,OOO/- per month to her daughter in M.C.No. lT3 of 2OlZ before the trial Court. The trial Court having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the evidence available on record, vide Order dated 13 .O2.2024 in M.C.No. 173 of 2OlT, pafily ailowed the petition directing

¶34

¶35

EW,J Crl.R.ta No.643 of 2024

¶36

¶37

the respondent/husband to pay an amount of Rs.1g,O0O/_ per month towards maintenance to the petitioners/wife and daughter from the date of petition. The respondent was further directed to pay the maintenance arnount regularly on or before l Ott' of every succeeding month and to pay arrears of maintenance within tlvo months from 13.02.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶38

respondent/husband filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶39

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ husband submits that the rerrision petitioner neither ill-treated nor neglected respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, respondent No. I herself voluntarily left the compan]. of the revision petitioner and started living with .her parents. Without considering the said fact, the trial Court erroneously awarded maintenance of Rs. 1B,OOO/_ per month to respondent Nos.l and 2" He further contended that the revision petitioner is a retired army man, who gets pension ol Rs.31,575 / - and the petitioner has to take care of his aged parents, their medication and it \e.ill be difficult to eke

¶40

¶41

EW,J Crl.R.C.No.643 of2024

¶42

¶43

out his livelihood with the remaining meager amount. He, therefore, prayed to set-aside the impugned order dated 13.O2.2024.

¶44

On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 /wile and daughter submits that the tria,l Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, rightly passed the impugned order dated i3.O2.2024 and interlerence of this Court is unw'arranted. He, therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminai Revision Case.

¶45

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner/wiie hersell lvas examined as PWI and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked through her evidence. The father of the petitioner was examined as PW2 in support ol her contention. On behalf of respondent/husband, he himself was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.Rl to RB on his behalf before the trial Court.

¶46

Upon careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court rightly

¶47

EW,J Crl.R.C No.643 of 2024

observed that the respondent/husband had r.villfulll' neglected tlre petitioner Nos. I and 2lwife and daughter ivithout an_v reasonable cause. How'ever, taking into consideration of the submissions made bv the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ husband that in order tO provide financial security to respondent Nos.1 and 2lwife and dar-rghter, the petitioner/ husband bought a plot and got it registered in the name of respondent No. 1/u,ile, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce maintenance of Rs.18,000/ per month to Rs.17,OOO/- per month to respondents/u'ife and daughter for eking out their livelihoocl by keeping in view of the present cost of living IS and spiraling prices. The revision petitioner/ h usband clirected to cleposit the arrears of maintenance accrued if :rn1' to the savings account of respondent No. 1/u ife with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copv of this order

¶52

Accordinglv, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶53

¶54

EW,J Crt R.C.No.6as of2O24

¶55

¶56

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶57

closed.

¶58

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI TY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'l . The Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar

¶64

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

¶65

One CC to Sri Anirudh Sadhu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66

One CC to Sri K Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

5 Two CD Copies

ADK

HIGH COURT

DATED:2711112024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.643^{of 2024}

¶74

H r- t4, r4r
G
1B ilAn 2025 z
\ L
*
_t C$1-O

¶75

DISPOSING OF^{THE CRLRC}

¶76

:al cpp' @

¶77

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy v. Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bujala Sreenivas Reddy v. Smt. Pavani alias Rajitha

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

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

Shaik Hidayath Vs The State of Telangana

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