Dismissed

B. Rameshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Oct 2024CRLRC/796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order awarding maintenance to an HIV-positive wife and minor daughter. The applicant was found to have sufficient means and failed to maintain, rejecting his unfounded counter-claims.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed. Arrears of maintenance to be computed per the Trial Court order and payable within one year.

B. Rameshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD -l

¶3

'--.-

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶5

PBESENT .

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE NO: 796 OF 2023

¶8

criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 and 401 of cr.pc against the Judgment 02.12-2022 made in M.c.No.2 l, l 20l B on the file of the court^"of the special Judicial Magistrate of First class, prohibition and Excise offences court, Sangareddy.

¶9

Between :

¶10

B Rameshwar Re.9dy, S/o.Nagireddy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. Nattavalli village, Nagarkurnool Town and mandal, Nagarkurnool D6trict.

¶11

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana,, rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court for the State ot Ielangan at Hyderabad.

¶14

Bussireddy L_atha, Wo. Rameshwar Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ. Househord, R/o. Nallavalli viilage. NagarkJrno-or Mandal anci oiiillci,-jresentty rgsiding at H. No.2-66, Pasham mairiram viilage, patancheru uanddi, trrtedat< District.

¶15

Bussireddy Sadhana, Wo. Rameshwar Reddv, aqed about 5 vears. Occ. student, R/o. Nallavarri village, Nagarkurnool Man-dar and Distiict. oiesenflv rgsiding at H. No.2-66,^pasham mailaram village, patancheru Mandai, M;ijak District. minor, rep. by her mother Bussireody Litira who is the i o resbonoent herein.

¶16

...Respondents/Petitioners

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Damodar Reddy

¶18

counsel for the Respondent No.'l : E.Ganesh, Assistant^{public prosecutor}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 : p.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH

¶20

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶21

-:'4n@7 ,. ,/

¶22

r'l

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENIJGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.796 OF 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitroner (husband) and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (wifr: and daughter) an<l perused the material placed on recorcl

¶26

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been Jrreferred against the impugned order dated 02.12.2022, passed ry the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Prohibition and Flxcise Offences Court, Sangareddy (hereinafter referrecl :o as 'the Trial Court'), in M.C.No.21 of 2O18 filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Pro<:edure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') whe: eby an amount of Rs.15,OO0/ (Rupees {ifteen thousand only) per month to respondent No.2 and a sum of Rs.1O,000/- (Rupee's ten thousand only) to respondent No.3 were awarded towards mailrtenance, which is payable on lOrh day of each month from the dat,: of fi)ing of the said applicati,rn.

¶27

The fa<:tual matrix of the case relevant 1,rr the present Criminal Revision is that the marriage of respondenl No.2 (wife) rvas performed with the petitioner (husband) on 24.O2.21012 and at the 1 time of 'marnage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave a slrm of Rs. 1,70,000/ - cash, gold and household articies to the petit.ioner

¶28

¶29

I I I : I I : i

¶30

towards dowry. Thereafter, the petitioner started harassing respondent No.2 both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. Out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 became pregnant. While respondent No.2 pregnant, she underwent to blood tests, wherein, she carne to know that she^. is HIV positive. On enquiry, she came to know that the petitioner herein is also HIV positive. Later, on 05.05.2013 she gave birth to a female child (respondent No.3). Despite several attempts to settle the matter with the petitioner, he did not turn up and left respondent Nos.2 and 3 to their fate. The petitioner is mnning dairy farm and earning a sum of Rs.6O,OOO/- per month and he is having movable and immoveable properties and he has sufhcient mea-ns to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.

¶31

The petitioner herein appeared and filed counter before the Trial Court, wherein, he stated that respondent No.2 is falsely levelling charges against him, which are unfounded. Respondent No.2 was herself coercing him physically and mentally. In fact respondent No.2 is suffering from HIV positive but the petitioner is hale and healthy and that he was not affected with HIV^positive. He is leading his life by working as agriculture labour and he^{has no} means to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 9,.,--.

¶32

¶33

,.,1. t,'

¶34

Both the parties did not choose to adduccr either oral^or documentary evidence before the trial Court.^{t.)onsicleringthe} material available on record and in the light of^pleadings of^the parties, the l:arned Trial Court allowed the mainter tance^petil-ion ol respondent Nos.2 and 3 and awarded maintenartce to them as discussed supra vrde impugned order dated 02.12.2'.)22.

¶35

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, th.' petitioner has taken stand in the present revision petition that he is ekrng out his iivelihood by doing agriculture labour and he ha s no means to maintain respondent Nos.2 ald 3. The true purpo.i t of the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is predicted on two conditions i) husband has suffrcient means and ii) 'neglects' to maintain h.is wil.e, who is unable to mzr-intain herself. He placed reliance on^rhe Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh a. Neha1.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for responder''t Nos.2 and 3 submitted that respondent No.2 is HIV patient and :espotrdent No.3 is aged about. 5 years old, therefore, they are in neecl of maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner is running rlairy farm and earning Rs.60,000/ - per month and he has suff:.cient means to maintain the'm. There is no infirmity, irregularitl' or illegality in impugned order passed by the Trial Court arrd the same is

'(202r)² "s_cE32

r<br>

liable to be afhrmed in the present revision. Respondent No.2 is under starvation and she requires some hnancial assistance to lead her life.

¶41

Having regard to the contentions of respondent No.2-wife before the Trial Court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the petitioner had sufficient source of income and was ieble bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶42

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 he is living by doing coolie work and he has no means to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3, and they are not entitled for any 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 tenable. In the same vein, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 will not be deprived of the maintenance awarded by the Trial Court.

¶43

After meticulously anaJyzirrg the entire facts and circumstances of the case on hald, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffers from any inhrmity or

¶44

¶45

illegality and it is sustainabie under law. Therefole, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefo re, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The arrears of mairrtenance will be computed in terms of the Order dated 02. 12.202 )-^passed by the Trial Court and the same will be payable to respon<:.ent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of one (01) year from the date of this order.

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha1l :;tand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶52

sec#rkrrrcen

¶53

The Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, prohib tion arrd Excise offences rlourt, Sangareddy.

¶54

One CC to Sri M.Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶55

One CC to Sri P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, Advocate tOpUCl

¶56

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the s.:ate of Telangana, Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶57

Two CD C:opies SVS/PSL (h'

¶58

HIGH COURT

¶59

DATED:1511012024

¶60

, ; =,;"T1't-'-.,
,/.,,,.
,/ i
'j
1$SLP;<br>

¶61

ORDER

¶62

CRLRC.No.796 ot 2023

¶63

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶64

( A- 1 t,^v-</sup>

B. Rameshwar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Rameshwar Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V Narayana Reddy (Died) Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sadiq Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Peddadoddi Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

M.Naresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P.

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.