Dismissed

Smt Mehraj Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Dec 2024CRLRC/717/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging a family court order awarding monthly maintenance to a wife and two minor children. The court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's assessment of income and living standards.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed. Liberty granted to approach trial court for enhancement under Section 127 CrPC.

Smt Mehraj Begum, Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

I^s2ee l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IMONDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 717 and 882 OF 2024

¶7

CrlRC.No. 71712Q24:

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397 & 4O1 of CrpC., being aggrieved by the order passed by the ll Additional Judge Family Couri cum XV Addi. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Compl6x, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in MC. No. 299 of 2023(Old MC No. 379t2016) dateij 3,d April 2024. Between:

¶9

'1. Smt Mehraj Begum , Wo lt4ohd Khaja Wajeed Hussain, aged about 27 yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 12-2-32812, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnim, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 !1qa^{Be.g.um, D/o Mohd Khaja Wajeed Hussain, agd about 13 yrs, Occ.} Student, U{91 the guardianship of her naturat mother The petitio'ner No.1 herein, Rlo H No. 12-2-32812, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hycierabad.

¶11

3 {mpana^{Begum, D/o Mohd Khaya Waieed Hussain, aged about'10yrs, Occ.} Student, !1{91 the guardianship of her natural mother The petitioirer No.1 herein, R/o H.No. 12-2-32812, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hycierabad.

¶12

,..PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The S-tate of Telangana, rep. By its Public Prosecutor, Having office at T.S. High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

Khaja Wajeed Hussain, S/o late Khaja Yousuf Hussain, R/o Plot No. 58, Sr ftlo,.125,^{Kalpana Co Operative Society, Chintal QuthbullapurMandal,} Malkajgiri District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 125 (2) ol 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 grant interim maintenance to the petitioners @ Rs.30,000/- per month from the date of maintenance petition, pending disposal of the Revision

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Sri Meghana Addla Suneel

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:882OF2024

¶23

Revision filed under section 438 & 442 of BNSS., being preferred aqainst the. .orders. - passed by _the Judge, ll Additionai ra-miiy Court_cu-m_kV Additional Metrop()litan sessions Judge, Kalpataru comblex, citv civrl Cou( _Hyderabad in M C No. 299 of Io23 ( otd M.C No. 37s or zoi6l,-at, 03-04-2024 Between:

¶24

Khaja_Wajeed Hussain, S/qlrtp [fra1.1_y9u9uf Hussain Aged about 42 years, occ . Business R/o.Prot No.s8, sr.No.i25 Karpana co-operitive society ci,in1ai, Hyderabad - 500 137

¶25

...Petitioner/ Respondent

¶26

AND

¶27

1 The. State.of Telangana, Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶28

2 Mehraj B.-egum, Wo.lr/lohd.Khaja Wajeed Hussain nged iZ years, Occ . Housewife

¶29

3 Uzma Begum, D/o Mohd.Khaja Wajeed Hussain Aged 12 years, Occ . Student

¶30

4 AInTul"^{Begum, D/o.Mohd.Khaja WajeedHussainAged9 years,} Occ^. Student.

¶31

(Respondent No 3 & 4 are minor and under the case and custody of Resp. No.3 who is their natural mother they all are resident or r-r. Nci. iz -z si\tz, Murad Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabid.)

¶32

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶33

IANO:2OF2 o24

¶34

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the brder pr.."i in M C.No 299 o't 2023 (Otd M.C.No 379 ot 2016), dtO3.O4.2O24 passed by the Judge, ll Additional Family court-cum-XV Additional Metropoiitan sessions Judge, Kalpataru Ccmplex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, penciing d;sposat of main Criminal Revisicn Case.

¶35

'-F.._d

¶36

Counsel for the petitioner:SRl. MEGHANA ADDLA SUNEEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Mohammad Adnan The Court made the following: ORDER:_

¶37

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.7L7 and 882 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:

¶39

Challenge in these Criminal Revision Cases is the impugned order dated O3.O4.2O24 in M.C.No.299 of 2023 (Old M.C.No.379 of 2Ot6) (for short ,impugned orderJ passed by the learned II Additional Judge Family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Kalpataru Compiex, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "trial Court,,) wherein maintenance of Rs.4O,0O0/_ per month was granted in favour of wife and children.

¶40

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array before the triaj Court.

¶41

Cr1.R.C.No.717 of 2024 is filed by the

¶42

petitioners/wife and children seeking enhancement of maintenance amount uid.e impugned order and Crl.R.C.No.B82 of 2024 is filed bv the

¶43

¶44

respondent/husband seeking to set aside the impugned order

¶45

Since both the Criminal Revisions Cases are hled challenging the sarne impugned order passed in M.C.No.299 of 2023 (Old M.C.No.3Z9 of 2016), these matters are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the wife and children, learned counsel for the husband and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State_respondent No.1.

¶47

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 08.06.200i, at Nimrah Function Hall, Opp. Milan Talkies, Asif Nagar, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad as per Muslim Rites. Later on, respondent always tortured her physically and mentally. On 05. |L.2OO6, they were blessed with petitioner No.2 and all her delivery expenses borne by her parents. As she gavc birth to female

¶48

¶49

¶50

child, respondent and other^{family members harassed} her and asked for additional dowry.^{When, petitioner} No.1 expressecl inability of her^{parents to pay the same,} they beat her. Thereafter,^{she was blessed with another} female child, i.e.,^{petitionerNo.3. In June 2008,when} petitioner No.1 was carrying^{7th month pregnancy, sister-} in-law of respondent kicked^{on her stomach, due to} which she had a miscarriage. In^{spite of knowingtho} sarne, responclent kept^{quiet and left petitioner No.l at} 2O1O the door steps of her^{parents. In r"u.,ri,} brothers of respondent asked^{petitioner No.l to get} additional dor,r'ry of Rs.1,60,000/-.^{As she refused for the} sarne, respondent and his brothers^{beat her and caused} bleeding injuries. Due to unbearable^{harassmentof the} respondent and other family members,^{she left their} home and stayed with her old^{aged parents along with} her minor daughters. Her parents are^paying school^fees of her two daughters. The respondent is a business man and his total earnings are more than Rs.2,10,O00/-. Since the respondent neglected to maintain her and her .\

¶51

¶52

children and as she is a house hold lady and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors, studying in school, they have no source of income to maintain themselves. Hence, she lrled M.C.No.299 of 2023 (OId M.C.No.379 of 2Ot6l.

¶53

Respondent-husband filed his counter denying the allegations made by petitioner No.1 regarding physical and mental harassment for additional dowry. He further contended that petitioner No.1-wife is not interested to lead marital life with him and she herself left the company of respondent and started staying at her parents' house. He further contended that petitioner No.1 filed D.V.C.No.l82 of 2O2l on the file of the learned III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He further contended that out of job, respondent used to earn Rs.B,OOO/- to Rs.10,0OO/- per month towards rent from the house which stands in the name of petitioner No.1 and used to pay school fees of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and used to purchase clothes for petitioner No. 1 on every festival, as such it is not possible for him to provide

¶54

¶55

¶56

separate maintenance to petitioner Nos.l to 3 and they are not entitled for separate maintenance.

¶57

Learned counsel for the wife and children submits that the petitioner No.l-wife has gone through severe harassment leading to bleeding injuries in connection with demand for additional dowry and she got miscarriage of her pregnancy two times and she is having two minor daughters and she was not in a position to maintain herself and her minor children and prayed for grant of maintenance.

¶58

The learned Magistrate after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and facts before it has allowed the M.C. in-part awarding a sum of Rs.2O,OOO/per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, totaling to Rs.4O,O00/towards their maintenance payable by respondent from the date of order. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners/wiI'e and children filed Crl.R.C.No.717 of 2024 for enhancement of maintenance and

¶59

¶60

respondent/husband^{hled Crl.R.C.No.882 of 2024 to set} aside the same.

¶61

Learned counsel^{for thepetitioner No' 1/wife} submitted that the^{learnedMagistratehas granteda} meager amount as^{monthlymaintenanceas the cost of} living standards of^{the people have been escalated in} today's context.^{Hence,seeks for enhancementof} monthly maintenance.

¶62

l,earned counsel^{for therespondent/husband} contended that the^{trial Court without appreciatingthe} evidence available^{on recordin proper perspectivehas} erroneously^{passed the impugned order and seeksto set} aside the same.

¶63

Learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutorsubmitted that} the trial Court,^{after appreciatingthe oraland} documentary evidence^{available on record inpropa} perspective, rightly^{passed the impugnedorder, which is} very meager in^{view of escalation ol prices in today's} context.^{He further submitsthat the wife and children}

¶64

,tt/

¶65

¶66

without filing appropriate application for enhancement of manntenance before the learned trial Court have filed revlslon case before this Court, which is misconceived and interference of this Court at this stage is unwaffanted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the criminal revlslon cases.

¶67

On behalf of petitioner No.1/wife, she herself was examined as pWl and also examined pW2 and marked Exs.Pl to p15. On behalf of the respondent/husband, he himself was examined as RW1 and marked Exs.Rl to R3. Upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record, the trial Court rendered the impugned order.

¶68

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the learned triar court rightly passed the impugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the respondent_husband and the living standards of the people in the present day societ5r' charenging such meager amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of

¶69

¶70

¶71

the people have escalated to a larger extent. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and the Revision Cases are 1iable to be dismissed

¶72

Accordingly, both these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed, granting liberty to petitioners/wife and children to approach the learned trial Court and make necessary application under Section 127(1.1 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance.

¶73

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶74

Sd/. I. NAGA LA SHMI DEPUTY REGI TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'I . The Judge, ll Additional Family Court-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, City Civil Court,^Hyderabad.

¶79

1. One CC to Sri Meghana Addla Suneel, Advocate.[OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^Telanganaat Hyderabad (OUT).

¶80

Two CD Copies

t . , VGS/gh r(

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211212024

i n,: S'I 416
J'
(
(
'-)
(j 22 i.', 2i]25 ?
.L
t
I
DEsPArc

¶86

ORDER:-

¶87

CRIMINAL RHVISION CASE NO: 717 and 882 OF 2024

¶88

BOTH THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ARE DISMISSED

¶89

I wcsq(e['

Smt Mehraj Begum, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mehraj Begum, 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

Gollena Rajaiah Vs the State of Ap.

M.Hanumanth Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Kunaparaju Seetha Rama Raju Vs Indukuri Subba Raju

Ambeer Purnachandra Rao Vs the State of A.P.

Chiluveru Swarajyam Vs The State of Telangana

Megavath Raju, and 2 Others, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., Trgh Sho.