HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.78 OF 2023
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is arising out of the judgment dated 20.01.2023, in Crl.A.No.1032 of 2019 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which arose out of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019, in DVC.No.9 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court) Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to, as they are arrayed in Domestic Violence Case. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in DVC.
3. The revision petitioner/respondent has challenged the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019, before the appellate Court wherein the revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards interim maintenance, from the date of order, till the disposal of main DVC and further shall pay the said maintenance on or before 10th of every month 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023 either directly to the petitioner or into the bank account of petitioner.
4. The appellate Court after considering the contentions of the appellant have confirmed the orders in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019 dated 22.10.2019.
5. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred. The revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent/petitioner in the DVC. Initially, the DVC was filed by the wife/petitioner contending that her marriage was performed with the respondent on 24.07.2017. A defer dower of Rs.11,000/-, cash of Rs.5 lakhs was paid on demand. Further, they gave 15 tolas of gold ornaments, 51 tolas of silver ornaments, bullet motorcycle, jahez articles worth of Rs.5 lakhs two days prior to marriage. After few days of their marriage, misunderstanding arose between them and the revision petitioner/respondent sold away the gold and silver ornaments belonging to the petitioner and harassed her physically and mentally, threatened to kill her or pronounce 3 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023 divorce in order to marry another woman and also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs.
6. It is the further contention of the petitioner before the trial Court that the respondent is running meat business and supply it to hotels, function halls etc., and was earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- p.m. and also receiving rents of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- p.m. and prayed to grant interim maintenance.
7. The revision petitioner/respondent filed a detailed counter denying all the material allegations and prayed to dismiss the application. But, the trial Court has granted Rs.7,000/- p.m. as interim maintenance to the petitioner therein.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Perused the record.
9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that despite of producing document i.e., certificate issued by the employer of respondent, neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court considered the said document 4 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023 which proves the earnings of revision petitioner. Therefore, non considering the documents is the error and irregularity in the orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the Memorandum of grounds also discloses the appellant has filed a document i.e., the certificate dated 11.09.2019 issued by his employer i.e. Taj Mutton Shop showing that he is working as labour and is earning upto Rs.150/- per day. The said document was filed before the trial Court to prove his income which was not considered by either of the Courts below and therefore prayed to set aside the orders of both the Courts below.
10. On hearing the contentions of the counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the orders of both the Courts below, it is evident that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has discussed about the document which was filed by the respondent herein. Without going into merits, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and necessary for the trial Court to consider the document filed by the revision petitioner herein and to pass 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023 orders afresh considering the document filed by the respondent i.e., certificate dated 11.09.2019.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the orders dated 20.01.2023 in Crl.A.No.1032 of 2019, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and consequently the orders dated 22.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019 in DVC.N.09 of 2019 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate are also hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court/III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court) Hyderabad, for passing orders afresh after hearing the parties and considering the document i.e. employment certificate.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 03.02.2023 dv