Allowed

M.Malleshwari, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. and 2 Otrs.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2024CRLRC/945/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought maintenance under a Domestic Violence Act case; trial court granted Rs.2,000 per month, appellate court set it aside citing customary separation and Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court upheld the trial court's award and restored maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; appellate judgment set aside; Rs.2,000/month maintenance upheld; arrears ordered deposited into petitioner's account within one year.

M.Malleshwari, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND} TWENTY FOUR

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{NO:945 OF 2014}

¶7

Revision filed under Section^{397 and 401 of Cr'P C , praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled in support of the Criminal RevisionCase,} the High court may be^{pleased to set aside the judgment passedin crl. appealNo.} 77 of 2013 on the file of^{the court of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge,} lvliryalg uda, daled 03-04-20^{1 4.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

N/.MALLESHWARI,NALGONDADT.,,Wo.NarsimhaRao,RioChutapally Village, Mattampally Mandal,^{Nalgonda District.}

¶10

Petitioner/RespondenUAg^{grieved Person}

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . STATE OF AP., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad,

¶13

ResPondent

¶14

2 lvlurarishetti Narasimha^{Rao, S/o. Venkateshwarlu (late) Business, R/o H No'} 2-128, Chutapally Village,^{l/attampallyMandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶15

J Chenuri Seetharavamma,^{Wo. Guravaiah (late) Business'R/o- H No 2-128,} Chutapally Village, Mattampally^{Mandal, Nalgonda District'}

¶16

ResPondents/aPPellants

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2014

¶18

Petition under section^{'151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition,the High court may be pleased to} suspend the^{judgment passed in crl.AppealNo. 77 of 20'13on the file of the court of} theAddl.DistrictandSessionsJudge,Miryalguda'dated03-04.2014,pending disposal of the above^{criminal revisioncasein the interest of justice.,Pending} disposal of CRLRC 945 of^{2014, on the file of the High Court'}

¶19

The petlion,AlpeaI coming on for hearing, upon pet.using thc petition and the affidavit filed It s;Lrtr 30d thereof and the order of the Higlr oourt order dated mac r: h:r'e in and upon hearing the arguments r:,f S SUF ENDER REDDY Advocate for the^{pr:lhroner(s),} pUBLrc pRosECUTOR, for the respondent No.1 and Annapurna sr:erarr Acrvocate for the respondents No.2& il fcr arrc the court made the following

¶20

ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASEN0.945 0F 2014}

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The present Criminal^{RevisionCase is filed against} the Judgment dated^{O3.O4.2O14 in Cr1'A'No'77of 2Ol3} passed by the learned^{Additional District and Sessions} Judge, Miryalguda^{(for short, 'theappellate Court)"} in allowing the appeal^{by setting aside the orderdated} 25.70.2012 in D'V.C.No'6^{of 2071 passed by the learned} Judicial First^{Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar(for short'} "the trial Court").

¶24

Heard learned^{counsel representing on behalf of} petitioner/ aggrieved^{person,Mr'E'Ganesh,learned} Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingforrespondent} No.1/State and^{Ms.AnnapurnaSreeram,learnedcounsel} representing^{respondent Nos.2 and 3' Perused the record'}

¶25

3 The brief facts^{of the case are that the petitioner/wife} where as the^resPondeut 1S native of^MattamPallY

¶26

¶27

EVV,J Ctl.R.C.No.945 of 2014

¶28

No.27 hrrs rz nd is native of Choutapally arrcl th,: re spondent No.2 nrarri:C the petitioner herein on 04_0,3_l!)i,!l and they starte<l lirii^-lq 21 Choutapally and out of tt.eir n,ec lock one son rvils torn to them by name praveen I{-r Lmar on O2-01-r9!)ii It is stated that her husband hara;sed her and nt:cke r[ her out of matrimonial home mary. a times, once ht: trrcken her hand, which constrained her to live with h,:r :;ister by name Rajeswari at Mattar-rpa l-v. It is further stat:d that she has no source of incomr: ol- her own and sher vva s not provided aly maintenanc e, Ers s rch she was cc,nstr':iined to file D.V.C.No.6 of 2Ol1 beftrr.e :he trial Court, seell rrg maintenalce at the rate of Rs.lj,OCrOi _ per month for^rrer and a sum of Rs.2,OO,lXJO /._ _ou.ards compensatic r r from her husbald.

¶29

Brriorlr :he trial Court, in order to prov(: th e case, petitiorLr:r e,ramined herself as pW. 1 and sh<: got examined PWs.2 a:-id ..i and got marked Exs.pl to p6 On b,:half of responcl,:rrt ll,r.2 herein, got examined himse f as llVr. 1 and his sisterTi r,:;condent No.3 herein was exarrrineC a ; RW.2 and Ex.R. 1 .o R.6 were marked on his behalf.

¶30

¶31

EWJ CrLR.C.No.945^of2014

¶32

! '^I t I

¶33

On considering both^{oral arrd documentarSr evidence} produced before the trial court,^{the trial court allowed the} petition partly gralting^{maintenance of Rs.2,000/-per} month to petitioner to^{be payableon or before10th of every} succeeding month^{and alsoRs.5OO/- towards costs of the} petition, but dismissed^{the other reliefs soughtby the} petitioner for Residential order,^{Protection ordersandalso} compensation of^{Rs.2,OO,OOO/-for both physical and} mental harassment^{sufferedin the handsof the respondent} No.2/husband.

¶34

6 Aggrieved by the^{orders of the trial Court, respondent} No.2/husband^{filedCrl.A.No.77 of 2Ol3before the} appellate Court,^{questioningthe order of the trial Court in} granting maintenalce of^{Rs.2,OOO/-per monthto the} petitioner herein.

¶35

On re-appreciation^{of the oral and documentary} evidence available^{on record,the appellateCourt opined} that the petitioner^{failedto satisfy the appellate Court that} her husbald subjected^{her to cruelty or any form of} violence while^{living together prior to filingof the complaint}

l^n

(

EWJ
Crl.R.C.No.945 oJ 2O14

¶40

before tL c protection Officer and unatrle to bear the violen,:e ir the halds of her husband she approz.ched the conce rnec lorum. On the other hand, t he evi< lence on recorrl particularly Exs.R_2 pahali and 1R_3 c:o1 y of the Paharrl 1'or. r he year 2OO2=O3 bearing the srgnzrtur:s of the petitio;t er ir -e sufficient that long back in th,_. 1a .* , nr6 both the I: ()l itioner and respondent No.2/husband decided to livr: se:a rately, in the absence of an,, rlivor:e by a comp€1et-lt rlourt, it can be inferred that th:: p€trti(,ner a,,d resporrlen . I,lo.2/husband were not living toge._LLer but the petitionr:r teJring advantage of the beneficial anct immediate remedies a.r,ailable in the D.V.C Act and frling ot.pe tition is nothin e btrt abuse of process of Act. The ir.ppel lat e Court further oprrr,:d that the petitioner is having r:Ifr cacious remedl ar,:jlable under Section I2S C-.p.(l seeking mainterilncr irrespective of Exs.R-2 and Fr-3 doc rments and Se:tior: 25 Cr.p.C. also providing righr to a, d ivorced womar tr_r r:]aim maintenarrce from the husbeinri until re-ma-riage lhough there was customaqr divc,rce under Ex.R-2 r.rrh icl. calnot be equated with a divor.ce <iecree of a competr:, t (--'c urt even then the petitioner is r:.ti led to

¶41

¶42

, EWJ OLR.C.No.945 of 2014

¶43

claim maintenance from the respondent No.2/husband^by filing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and further opined that the petitioner is not^prevented from initiating^action under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the^respondent No.2/husband. The appellate Court^opined that^{the order} of the trial court was not at all sustainable in^{the eye of} law, as such allowed the Criminal^{Appeal.Aggrievedby the} same, the present Revision is^filed by^{the petitionerherein} seeking to set aside the impugned^judgment.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner^{contendedthat the} appellate Court without considering^{the evidenceon record} in a proper perspective erred in setting^{aside the Orders} passed in DVC No. 6 of 2011. He further^{contendedthat} the appellate Court on assumptions^{and presumptions} allowed the appeal filed^{by respondentNo.2 herein ald the} same is liable to be set aside.^{He further contendedthat} the appellate Court ought to^{have seen that the petitioner} herein filed the application by^{invoking the provisionsof} Domestic Violence Act and sought^{maintenancefrom the} respondent No.2 herein @ Rs.SOOO/-^{per month and also}

¶45

¶46

I i I l I I i , t . + I i I I I I I { '

¶47

EryJ Crl.R.C.No.945 of2014

¶48

sough: f<rr compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- an1 tL e learned tria-l^(-'-ot. l': aJter appreciating the evidr,:nce o; r record, a,llour:d the DVC by granting an arnount c,f Rr;.2,r)OO/- per month tr:rrards her maintenance from r.esponient No.2 hereir ft<:rr the date of the filing of the cese. A.g,g rieved by the siricl c I der, respondent No.2 herein creferre d appeal befor,: the rr.ppellate Court on flimsy grour_- ds ,i,it.l out even depor;r ling; a single pie and the learned ap;r<:lli tte court rvithorrt ir:preciating evidence on record zur<I u,ithout considerir.rl the purport of the provisior.rs o. )omestic Violen:e r1.r:. allowed the appeal by setting asirft: tre Order of learnecl lv{agistrate and the sarne cannot tre s ustained under t:-r.e, :i 1aw. He further contended that the rppellate Court hel I that the petitioner is having rerned y under sectio: 12: of Cr.P.C and she can seek maintenan :e under the szL: d rr rovision instead of provisions c f I )omestic Violencu: A : t He further contended that the app,ella te Court ought r-o I L lve seen that there is no t,ar or: seeking maintonarrc( from the husband or his relati,,es by z. ,\romen under t.he 1>rovisions of Domestic Violenr.:e r<1. arld by conside rinrJ the same the appellate Court sr,:u ld have

¶49

¶50

EW,J CrLR.C.No.945^{of 2O14}

¶51

dismissed^{the appeal filed by resPondentNo'2 herein'} He further^{contendedthat it is the duty of the husband to} maintain^{his wife, evading the same deliberately also comes} under^{the purview ofDomestic Violenie Act and by} considering^{the samethe aPPellateCourt should have} filed^{bY resPondentNo'2 herein'} dismissed^{the aPPeal} He, therefore,^{prayed to a1low the Revision'}

¶52

g. On the other^{hand' the learnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor^{representingrespondent No'1 and learned} counsel^{for the respondentNos'2 and 3 inone voice} contended^{that the appellateCourt after appreciating the} oral^{and. documentar5revidence rnproper PersPective,} rightly^{passed the impugnedJudgment ald interferenceof} Therefore,^{seeks to dismiss the} this Court^{is unwarranted} Criminal^{Revision Case'}

¶53

of record^{revealsthat in the year 1996} 10. A Perusal between^{the petitionerand respondent} disputes^arose and theY^{decided tolive seParatelY and} No.2/husband elders^{of their community directed respondent No'2 to gtve} Rs.9,OOO/-^{to the petitioner towards permanentalimony'}

¶54

¶55

EW,J (r1.R.C.No.94S of20j4

¶56

The sam,: lransaction \Mas put on paper anrl r.e spondent No.2 sigt; r.ri on the same. Ex.R.3 is the sarrl zr{ireement. Admittedl i , the petitioner never res:ded v.ith the respor:r1er- l after 1996. Relationship bel wee n lroth the pafties i. admitted. The plea of il-re :-er pondent No.2/^L risl : r rd is that on 11.8.1996 the petitiorrer took custoro aiJ divorce from respondent No.2 /h usband The clLstonr a n. divorce is not at all having ,".alu,: in the eve of lau,. 'r-h<: rlivorced wife is aiso entitled fo;- m,lnt:nance. Furthe., rh:. plea of the respondent No.2/h..rsbiurl is that he wars sr,r1T.^ring from diabetics and BIood pr:ssure. Nou,-a-rlzrvs he sajd two diseases are cofi)mon and the same is not ir bar to give maintenalce to the r.r.ife It is the bounderr re,. 1 r, rn sib it5z of respondent No.2 to marnlz in the petitiont:;-. Ar other plea of the respondent rlo.2 / j:ru sband was tha1. he pi11,s Rs.9,000/_ as permanent alimc,r:.r. to the petitioner. Tlr : respondent No.2/husband agreecl th -- fact that the saicj l?s.9,000/_ was given to his son. Dorrestic Violence ,l ct i s meant to achieve social purpose ar d its object is to r;ilve the dependant from dest.itution and vagrarlcy, as :uch the impugrred order passed by the

¶57

¶58

DW,J C1LR.C.No.945^oI2014

¶59

,II

¶60

appellate^{Court is liable to be set aside'Since no oral or} documentary^{evidencewith respect to income' expenditure} and standard^{of livingof the respondentNo'2 was placed} on record,^{the trial Court observedthat both the parties} failed to^{produce any documentaryevidencewith regard to} their means,^{except their oral testimoniesald it is an} undisputed^{fact that the petitioner is wife of respondent} No.2 herein,^{as such the respondent No'2 herein is under} legal obligation^{to provide minimum necessities to the} petitioner,^{at his cost ald accordingly'passedthe order} dated^{25. 10. 2Ol2 rn D'V'C'No'6of 2O 1 1 '}

¶61

In^{my view, since the dispute is as regards} maintenance,^{no documentary evidenceis placed on record} with respect^{to income' expenditure and standard of living} of the^{petitioner/husband' maintenanceshould be neither} luxurious^{nor penurious but is to be modestconsistent} with the^{staldard of living of the petitioner' Therefore' this} Court deems^{it just and proper to uphold the maintenance'} which^{was granted by the trial Court to the petitioner/wif1'}

¶62

¶63

EW,J (.1R.t.No.94S of20t4

¶64

.ln .lr e result, the Criminal Revision Ca se s a_llowed by st:ttrnrJ ;rside the impugned Judgment <lated O:i.04.2014 in Crl,,r..lr.c .77 of 2Ol3 passed by the le:rrnt:cl ,rrdditional Distri:t arrl Sessions Judge, Miryalguda and b.r r rpholding the or<1r.rr rlated 25. IO.2O|2 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2C11 passed by the lr:a -.ed Judicial First Class Magistrer.te, HLtz urnagar. The pe:irio rer is entitled to the maintenal:)e at tt e rate of Rs.2,()rlrO/ . per month towards maintenar: ce. In lerms of maint:nr,u;<u: order dated 25. lO.2O12 in D.V.C No.6 of 2O77, .he rt spondent No.2/husband hereie is rlirected to deposit thr: u-rear-s of maintenance accrued if iur r to the savings acc lLlnt of the petitioner/wife with in a penod of one yeilr lro rl the date of receipt of a copy ol,this orler arrd the petition:r- herein is directed to withrlrav,. ilre said arnoun!

¶65

Miscell rneous petitions, pending if any, shal stand

¶66

closed

¶67

To,

¶68

sD/- ruq,g9. tsMAtL DEPUTY I.IEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// For ASSt:STANT ii eC151p4*

¶69

t. The Addl. Distri:t and Sessions Judge, Miryalguda, 2. One CC to llfil. :j S;URENDER REDDyAdvocate [OPUC:] 3. One CC to SRI 1 I jl2lANNAPURNA SREERAM Advocate tOpUCI 4. One CC to TI-tE F,L BL|C PROSECUTOR, HtcH COURT, HyD [CrL T] 5. One spare copy f,, &_

¶70

?f:,1:{xii^y:, &&p,"**t

HIGH COUFIT'

DATED:f gt1?.t2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.94li of 2014

¶75

G.J .. t'r
(<br>O
-,..,<br>[l 4 ili .rfi,r
1:.LI _. it
a,,
J,
i/
. ,i l:,

¶76

ALLOWING THE CFi.tC

¶77

qr
I
Da b I

M.Malleshwari, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Malleshwari, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep. Pp. and 2 Otrs.

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

Gujjula Mahipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Byagari Goreppa Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

K.Siddiramulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Umesh Vyas, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd

Palle Yadagiri, Medak Dt., Vs State of Ap.,Thr Ps. Kuknurpally., Rep Pp.

Mohd. Khaja Hussain, Hyd., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.