Katepalli Samrat Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Sectibn 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to Call for the records pertaining to CRLMP,No.S43 of 20'19ⁱⁿ MC.No.1S ofi 2O1g Dt.01.05.2024, on file of the Hon'ble lll Additircnal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, and quash/set-aside the same.

¶15

l.A. NO: l OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^may be pleased to Suspend the operation of orders in CRLMP.No.543 of 2019ⁱⁿ MC.No.15 of 2019 Dt.Ol.05.2024, on file of the Hon'bke lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusirrg the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri'D.y.L.N. Charyulu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant public prosecutor OG/AP)^{on behalf of} the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following Order:-

¶19

TTIE,IIONOI'RABLE SUT. JUSTICE^{IC SUJANA}

¶20

CRIUINAL PETITION No.3804 of^2CI25

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Crirninal Petition is hled seeking^{to set aside the} order dated O1.O5.2O24 passd in Crl.M.P.No.543^{of 2019 in} M.C.No.15 ot 2Ol9 by the learned III^{Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that^{respondent No.2 frled} a petition uide Crt.M.P.No.543 of 20lg in^{M.C.No.15of 2Ol9} under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.^{seeking to grant interim} maintenance @ Rs.2O,OOO/- per montJr to^{respondent No'2'} The trial Court, after hearing both t]re^{sides, awarded an} amount of Rs.S,OOO/- per rnonth to respondent^{No.2 towards} interim maintenance from the date of^{filing of the petition till} disposal of the main petition. Aggrieved^{by the said order, the} petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

¶24

Heard Sri D.Y.N.L.N. Chary:lu,^{Iearned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner as well as Sri} M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant^{Publi'c Prosecutor}

¶25

2

¶26

sKIir, C:rl-P.[o.38()4 ofZt rs

¶27

appearing on behalf of respondent No.l-State and Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner sub:rritted that the trial Cotrt had failed to properly appreciate tlu: fact t1at tl.e petitioner was not earning any income, co::trar5r to the statemerrts made by respondent No.2. H e stated that responde:nt No.2 had deliberately rnisrepresented her occupation by declaring herself as a housewife , although she was acturally employed. He further submittec that the trial CoErt=hed-ovtrFooke-d Eis -cmcial fa6t and. Iarli:d to conside? ttre material evidence on record. He further rmtbmitted that the petitioner was workitrg as a daily wage labourer, earntng approximately Rs.f 2,OOO/- per -month, wherers respondent No.2 was a software professional, drawing a salary of Rs.4O,OO0/- per montJr. Despite this irrcome clisparit5r, the trial Coult had awarded maintenance of Rs.S;OOC)/_ per month to respordent No.2 without properly assessin6, the Frnancial capacr.ty of the petitioner. Therefore, he praye<l the Court to set aside the order dated OL.OS.2O24 passed in Crl.M.P.N,:.543 of 20 19 by altowing this criminal petition.

¶29

3

¶30

SI(sr., C*Pro.3a()4^{of ZYE}

¶31

\ \

¶32

On the other hand, learned^{counsel for respondentNo'2} submitted the^{petitionerwas eamingapproximately} Rs.1,OO;OOO/-^per month^{through his hotel business, though} no documentar5r evidence^{had beenproduced to substantiate} this ctaim. He further^{submittedthat althoughrespondent} No.2 was a B.Tech^{graduate,she was not employedand was} financially dependent^{on her parents and that considering the} circumstances, tl.e^{trial Court awarded a meager amount'He,} thereforc, prayed^{ttre Court to dismiss the cri-rninalpetition'}

¶33

In tlre light of the^{submissionsmade by both the} learned counsel^{and upon perusal of the material available on} record, it is observed^{t}.at the} Present^{petition under challenge} is hled under Section^{125(3) of Cr.P.C., seeking grant of} interirn maintenance^{byrespondentNo.2'The main} cbntention of tJ:e^{leaned counselfor petitioner ist}.at} respondent No.2 is earning^{Rs-4O,OOO/-per monthas a} software professional. The^{main contentionof ttre learned} counsel for respondent^{No.2, on the other hand, is that} although she is a B.Tech^{graduate, she is unemployedand is} Iinancially dependent^{on her parentsas she is presently} residing witll them.^{However,no documentar5/ eviiencehas}

¶34

4

¶35

SKS,^I ()rI.P-f,o.3E()4 o( 2lras

¶36

been placed on record to substantiate this ck m. As such, tJ:is Court does not find aly illegality in the o;rder passed by the trial Court. Therefore, tJle criminal petit,on filed by tJ e petitioner is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

7 Accordingly, this criminal petition is disrr.issed.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any,. shall stand

¶39

closed.

¶40

SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY AI;SISTANT REGISTRAR \l

¶41

,,TRUE COPY//

¶42

\l SECTION OFFICER