THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.150 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner- respondent against the order dated 12.10.2019 passed in MC No.383 of 2013 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The parties hereinafter are referred as per their array before the trial court.
3. The petitioners (i.e. respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed MC No.383 of 2013 against the respondent (petitioner herein) on the file of the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. As per the facts of the case in the MC, the 1st petitioner was married with the respondent on 14.02.2001 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Siddipet, Medak District. At the time of marriage, the mother of the 1st petitioner provided a sum of Dr.GRR,J ::2:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 Rs.40,000/- and ½ tula of gold ring as dowry as demanded by the respondent apart from 2 tulas of gold ornaments, household articles and incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for the marriage. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner came to know that the respondent suppressed the fact that he divorced his first wife on 24.01.1997 vide OP No.89 of 1996 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. When the 1st petitioner enquired with him about the same, he got angry and beat her mercilessly and also tried to kill her by pressing her neck. The 1st petitioner contended that the respondent used to keep her under lock and key in the house, demanded additional dowry of Rs.60,000/- and started neglecting her and beating her. On 08.10.2005, the respondent beat the 1st petitioner mercilessly and tried to kill her with a knife. Due to the intervention of the neighbours, she escaped from his hands. The respondent necked her out of the house when she was pregnant of three months by demanding Rs.60,000/- to get from her mother. The 1st petitioner gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 10.04.2006 at Mediciti Hospital at Medchal. Her delivery expenses amounting to Rs.20,000/- were borne by her mother. The said news was intimated to the respondent. But, the respondent did not turn up to see the child. He filed OP No.480 of 2005 on the file of the Dr.GRR,J ::3:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the said OP, the 1st petitioner filed I.A. No.433 of 2007 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite. The said I.A was allowed on 02.08.2007 granting pendente lite maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and legal expenses. Against the said order, the respondent filed CRP No.1203 of 2008. This Court granted interim stay on condition of paying Rs.1,000/- per month and depositing of Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses. Thereafter, the CRP was also disposed of allowing it partly by reducing the pendente lite maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month, pending disposal of OP No.480 of 2005 on 29.09.2010. The respondent had not paid maintenance to the 1st petitioner regularly. Both the parties compromised the matter during the pendency of OP and the OP was dismissed on 21.11.2011 in terms of compromise. Both the parties continued their marital life, but after 3 to 4 months, again the respondent started harassing the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner gave birth to the 3rd petitioner on 13.03.2013. The 1st petitioner continued her marital life with the respondent considering the future of her children, but the respondent beat her severely and necked her out of Dr.GRR,J ::4:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 the house on 04.07.2013. Having no other go, the 1st petitioner returned to her mother's house and was living at her mercy at Begumpet. The 1st petitioner further submitted that the respondent was working as Office Subordinate in the office of the Engineer in Chief (AW), Irrigation and CAD Department, Jalasoudha, Erramanzil, Hyderabad and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.23,490/- and the respondent was a money lender and used to give hand loans to others, he was also having own houses and was getting additional income of Rs.50,000/-, and the total monthly income of the respondent was Rs.73,490/-.
4. The respondent filed counter admitting the relationship between him and the 1st petitioner and that the petitioners 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock. But, he denied that dowry was given at the time of marriage. He contended that the delivery expenses were borne by him only and due to the cruelty of the 1st petitioner, he filed divorce petition vide OP No.480 of 2005. He contended that during the pendency of the said case, the 1st petitioner and her family members approached him and assured that the 1st petitioner would not repeat her behaviour. As the 1st petitioner accepted her guilt and considering the Dr.GRR,J ::5:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 future of the minor son, the respondent agreed to lead marital life with the 1st petitioner. But, within a short period of time, she again repeated her past behaviour and started harassing the respondent. He also admitted that during the said period, the 3rd petitioner was born and stated that all the expenses were borne by him.
5. He contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.14,000/- per month and he was having a widow sister who was totally dependent on him and he was also having two other sisters, who used to visit his house regularly. He was also suffering with neck problem and had undergone surgery and was taking medicines regularly and had to bear the entire expenses from his meagre salary. He contended that the 1st petitioner and her mother used to work as Aayas and they were earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He also provided a job to the brother of 1st petitioner, by name, Nagaraj on out sourcing in Irrigation Department and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- and prayed to dismiss the MC.
6. During the course of trial, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondent examined himself as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5.
Dr.GRR,J
::6:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioners 1 to 3 totalling Rs.18,000/- per month towards their maintenance from the date of the order.
8. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred this revision contending that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that as per Exs.X1 to X6 (payslips of the respondent) his salary was only Rs.33,000/- per month, but considered it as more than Rs.50,000/-. The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st petitioner left the company of the respondent voluntarily without intimation and she used to harass the revision petitioner and filed false cases and the DVC case filed by her was also pending. The trial court failed to appreciate that during the pendency of the OP filed by the respondent vide OP No.480 of 2005 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st petitioner and her family members approached the respondent and settled the matter. The trial court failed to appreciate that the petitioner filed false cases against Dr.GRR,J ::7:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 the respondent before the Mahila Police Station and started harassing him due to which a writ petition was filed by the respondent vide WP No.22508 of 2014 and the matter was closed. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence of the respondent and the exhibits filed by him and prayed to allow the revision.
9. Heard learned counsel for the respondent (revision petitioner) and the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents).
10. Perused the record and the order of the trial court in MC No.383 of 2013. The trial court on considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, observed that the relationship between the parties was an admitted fact and that since 2013, both the parties were living separately and that the respondent was a Government employee.
11. With regard to the contention of the respondent that the 1st petitioner voluntarily left his company, the trial court observed that the respondent had not specified whether he had taken any steps to bring her back to his company and to take care of the minor children by paying the maintenance and school fee. Except making an allegation that the 1st petitioner used to visit her parents frequently, no Dr.GRR,J ::8:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 other allegations were made against her to prove her cruelty towards him. The trial court also observed that the respondent was not paying any amount towards the maintenance of the petitioners and was not taking them back to his company being husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3, he neglected to maintain them though he was a government servant and was drawing a good salary.
12. With regard to the salary of the respondent, the trial court had taken into consideration Exs.X1 to X6, salary slips of the respondent, produced by the Drawing and Disbursement Officer for the months from February 2018 to July 2018. The trial court observed that as per the payslips of July 2018, the gross salary of the respondent was Rs.49,181/- and his net salary was Rs.37,453/- and as one year had lapsed, by the date of passing the order, observed that definitely there would be an increase in the salary of the respondent and awarded only Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioners 1 to 3 towards their maintenance. This court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the Family Court in coming to the said conclusion.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent was only paying Rs.7,000/- per month to the Dr.GRR,J ::9:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 petitioners 1 to 3 even after the judgment passed by the court below in MC No.383 of 2013 and the respondent was due to pay Rs.11,000/- per month from 12.10.2019.
14. As the trial court awarded the maintenance after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and considering the gross salary of the respondent as revealed from the payslips, marked under Exs.X1 to X6, it is considered fit to dismiss the revision case upholding the orders of the trial court in MC No.383 of 2013. However, as the court below awarded the maintenance from the date of the order, it is considered fit to modify the same by awarding it from the date of the petition.
15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholding the order dated 12.10.2019 passed in MC No.383 of 2013 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The revision petitioner (respondent) is directed to pay the maintenance as awarded by the court below to the respondents (petitioners) from the date of the petition and to pay the arrears of Dr.GRR,J ::10:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020 maintenance due from the date of petition till date within a period of two (2) months from the date of this order and continue to pay the maintenance as awarded, on or before 10th of every succeeding month.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J November 08, 2022 KTL