Telangana High Court
Alluri Prasanna Kumar vs The State Of Telangana, on 5 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1993 of 2018
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal (for short the 'appellate Court') by modifying the order dated 09.12.2015 in D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 1 ½ Tulas of gold and also Rs.55,000/- to purchase a two-wheeler. On the next day of marriage, the petitioner forcibly took a promise from respondent No.2 that she will not force for natural children and she has to accept for adoption of a child and that when she tried to reveal the same to the elders of both sides, the 2 petitioner has requested her that he will inform the same to them after some period and that subsequently she continued her studies at Hyderabad and the petitioner was working at Adilabad as a Sub-Inspector in the Communication Department and they used to meet occasionally.
3. On 01.06.2007, the petitioner was transferred from Adilabad to Hyderabad and since respondent No.2 has also completed her studies, both of them started living at Hyderabad and the parents and relatives of the petitioner used to visit them very often and used to pick-up petty issues and used to raise allegations against her thus provocating the petitioner into anger and slowly the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 got strained and at one instance, respondent No.2 went to her parents house and stayed there for about three months and she worked as a Lecturer at SVIT Engineering College at Secunderabad, one day she fell unconscious at the College and immediately, the College Authorities informed to the petitioner and after her recovery, she went with the petitioner to Hyderabad and there the petitioner harassed her both 3 mentally and physically for three months for want of salary from her. The petitioner also alleged illicit intimacy on her.
4. Later on, respondent No.2 left the company of the petitioner, a panchayat was convened by the elders on both sides, found fault with the petitioner and his family members and warned them. Though a written resolution was passed at the panchayat the petitioner and his family members snatched away the agreement and tore it into pieces and thereafter, they did not turn up to take back respondent No.2. Later, respondent No.2 filed D.V.C. before the trial Court seeking protection order, residential order and maintenance.
5. The trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 in D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 has allowed the case by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance, further Rs.3,000/- per month for separate residence and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation within six months from the date of receipt of that order. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2016 before the appellate Court to grant 4 protection order prohibiting respondent Nos.1 to 5 in D.V.C from interfering with respondent No.2 day-to-day life and also directed the petitioner to take respondent No.2 and provide separate residence and also to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The learned Judge, appellate Court vide order dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016 has partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in D.V.C.No.17 of 2010, in-so-far-as directing to the petitioner to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards compensation within in six months from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Courts below have erred in awarding maintenance in favour of respondent No.2, who left the 5 company of the petitioner voluntarily and respondent No.2 is a highly qualified woman and working as a Lecturer in SVIT Engineering College, Secunderabad as such, respondent No.2 is earning handsome amount which is sufficient to maintain herself, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner. Hence, seeks to allow this criminal revision case by setting aside the order passed by the learned appellate Court in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the learned appellate Court, after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly passed the judgment and the interference of this Court, at this stage, is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the criminal revision case.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State is present and concedes to the submissions made by the counsel for respondent No.2.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 6 appearing for respondent-State and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the Court below.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Granting liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 to work out the remedies as available under the law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Dated: 05.12.2023 vsu