Telangana High Court
Captain Ramesh Kumar Deewan vs Mrs. Ashuma Deewan And Another on 22 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1147 OF 2012
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2456 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER :
Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner/husband under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad wherein the order dated 20.01.2011 in DVC No. 17 of 2008, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District was confirmed. Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.
2. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 and respondent No.1 in Crl.P.No.2456 of 2021, Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned senior counsel representing Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2456 of 2021 and respondent No.1 in Crl.RC No. Page 2 of 12 1147 of 2012 and also Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Since the parties to these two matters are one and the same and the issue involved is interlinked, these two matters are disposed of through this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties to these matters are hereinafter referred to as wife and husband.
4. DVC No.17 of 2008, on the file of learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri was filed by the wife Mrs.Ashuma Deewan against her husband Captain Ramesh Kumar Deewan under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming reliefs of Protection Order under Section 18 of the Act, Residence Order under Section 19 of the Act, Maintenance Order under Section 20 of the Act and compensation under Section 22 of the Act. The case of the wife against her husband was that he was arrogant, short tempered, used to pickup quarrel on each and every small issue and abuse her physically and mentally and went to the extent of pulling her hair and banging her head against the wall and also sat on her chest and banged her head to the floor and hence, the matter was reported to the employer officials of the husband i.e. Air Force Authorities in front of whom the husband publicly expressed his Page 3 of 12 apologies with a view to escape from the punishment and till his retirement he was kept under surveillance and under control of senior officials and after retirement, he restarted his ill-treatment against the wife and manhandled her on number of occasions and threatened her with dire consequences. The wife, keeping in view of welfare of their children, tolerated such harassment. Finally on 16.03.2008 the husband severely beat his wife on right cheek and left underarm and hence, a report dated 17.03.2008 was registered. Under these circumstances, the wife filed DVC No. 17 of 2008.
5. The husband denied all these allegations and contended that after marriage of 31 years, the present DVC is filed with false and baseless allegations. He further contended that due to the negligence of his wife, his mother died and when he questioned his wife, she picked up quarrel and threatened to complain the higher authorities of the husband and that she used to frequently go to her parents' house without any intimation. He further contended that the house where they lived was purchased by him out of his hard earned money in the name of his wife.
6. The learned trial Court, considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, RWs.1 and 2, documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P86 and Page 4 of 12 Exs.R1 to R17 allowed DVC No. 17 of 2008 granting the reliefs as extracted hereunder:
"(i) By granting Protection Order under Section 18 of the Act by restraining the respondent (husband) from committing any acts of Domestic Violence against the petitioner (wife).
(ii) By granting Residence Order under Section 19 of the Act permitting the petitioner (wife) to stay in house No.E19, Sainikpuri by restraining the respondent (husband) from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of the petitioner (wife) and also directing the respondent (husband) to remove himself from the shared household.
(iii) By granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner (wife) from the respondent (husband) under Section 20 of the Act with a direction to the respondent (husband) to pay the above maintenance on or before 10th of every month.
(iv) By granting compensation of Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner (wife) from the respondent (husband) under Section 22 of the Act with a direction to the respondent (husband) to pay the above compensation within three months from the date of this order."
7. Aggrieved by the said findings, the husband preferred Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2021 before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad wherein as per judgment dated 01.06.2012, believing that the husband meted out torture to the wife, the learned appellate Court confirmed the findings of the learned Page 5 of 12 trial Court but reduced the compensation amount from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the husband preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 mainly contending that both the Courts below highly placed reliance on Ex.P13 separation deed, which has no evidentiary value after the husband was out of service. The official documents, relied upon by both the Courts below, do not found place in the official records of the employer of the husband. The apology letter given by the husband was obtained exerting pressure on him. Both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the residence, where both the parties resided, was purchased by the husband with his hard earned monies in the name of his wife and the said fact is very much evident from the bank transactions, showing transfer of the said money from the account of husband to the account of builder. Fixation of maintenance amount at Rs.50,000/- per month is an erroneous one and on high side since he is a retired person and eking out his life on his pension and on the earnings of his petty job after retirement without having any other financial source. Further, both the Courts below failed to take into consideration his financial constraints and obligations. The husband made several deposits in the name of his wife out of his earnings but instead of such situation, both the Courts below have erroneously ordered him to give huge amount Page 6 of 12 towards compensation to the wife. Thus stating he requested to allow Criminal Revision Case No. 1147 of 2012.
9. Criminal RC No. 1147 of 2012 was filed by the husband before the erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh wherein on 18.07.2012 an interim suspension of order dated 30.01.2011 in DVC No.17 of 2008 before the learned trial Court, which was modified as per judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 before the learned appellate Court, was granted and later on 28.11.2013 the High Court passed order stating that the interim order granted on 18.07.2012 shall continue only on payment of arrears of maintenance from March, 2013 within ten days and continuation of payment of maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month by the husband. Since the husband failed to pay the maintenance, as directed by the trial Court, the interim order passed on 18.07.2012 stood vacated. It is contended by the wife that the husband paid only Rs.15,000/- per month from September, 2018 and fell due an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards arrears of monthly maintenance and Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and hence, the wife filed Crl.MP No.7 of 2019 in DVC No. 17 of 2008 before the learned trial Court. Page 7 of 12
10. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioner (husband) in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Chandrababu Alias Moses Vs. State through Inspector of Police and others 1.
(ii) Mohammed Iftequar Uddin Siddique, Hyderabad Vs. Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin, Hyderabad PP and others 2.
(iii) Reshma Banu and another Vs. Mohd.Abdul Qayyum and others 3.
(iv) Mohammed Shoeb Vs. State of Telangana and another 4.
(v) Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another 5.
(vi) Madhusudhan Bhardwaj and others Vs. Mamta Bhardwaj 6.
(vii) Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and another 7.
(viii) Ramachandra Warrior Vs. Jayasree and another 8.
(ix) ITC Limited Vs. Aashna Roy 9.
(x) Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka and others 10.
11. It is the contention of the wife that suppressing the true and real facts, the husband, mischievously filed Crl.MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008 under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking reduction of maintenance amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. Whereas, the wife filed Crl.MP No. 149 of 1 (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 774 2 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3105 3 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1179 4 2023 SCC OnLine TS 321 5 (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667 6 2009 Crl.LJ 3095 7 (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588 8 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1444 9 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87 10 The Supreme Court Cases (2009) 6 SCC Page 8 of 12 2021 under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking to punish her husband, which petition has been clubbed with Crl.MP No.904 of 2018. It is the further contention of wife that the learned trial Court erred in numbering Crl.MP No.904 of 2018 where the issue is directly sub- judice before this Court in Criminal RC No.1147 of 2012. Accordingly, aggrieved by registration of Crl.MP No.904 of 2018, the wife filed Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021.
12. In support of their contention learned counsel for the 1st respondent (Wife) in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani 11.
(ii) Shankar K. Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 12.
(iii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another 13.
(iv) Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another 14.
(v) Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others Vs. State of Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor and another 15.
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri 16.
(vii) Amar Ghand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and another etc., 17.
(viii) Logendranath Jha and others Vs. Polai Lal Biswas 18 11 (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 595 12 (2003)9 Supreme Court Cases 519 13 (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 463 14 (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 774 15 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd18 16 (1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452 17 (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 10 Page 9 of 12
(ix) Taron Mohan Vs. State and another 19.
(x) Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others 20.
(xi) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 21.
(xii) G.Sudhakar represented by his Power of Attorney Agent K.Gopal Vs. S.Lakshmi Priya 22.
13. This Court heard the elaborate arguments on either side and perused the material available on record including the decisions relied upon by both sides. Upon perusal of various orders germane from the subject matters, it is clear that due to the disputes between the parties various litigations were sprouted out and various reliefs were granted in favour of the wife and against the husband but the husband, to dilute the gravity of financial burden in compliance of the said orders, is trying tooth and nail. The harassment meted out to the wife is not in dispute. The disputes between the couple reached the higher officials of the husband before whom he expressed his apology to his wife and made promise to be well with her in future and accordingly, no departmental action has been initiated against him. Though the petitioner contended that his signature was taken on the apology letter by exerting pressure, he failed to give convincing explanation for higher-ups acting against him in such a passion. The law is well 18 1951 SCC 856 19 2021 SCC OnLine Del.311 20 (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 353 21 (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 22 Crl.RC No.1471 of 2018 (Madras High Court) Page 10 of 12 settled that the husband cannot escape from his liability of paying maintenance to his wife, who is not gainfully employed.
14. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down in the above decisions relied upon by both sides but their applicability to the facts of the present case is matter to be decided. In the present case, the wife filed Crl.MP No.149 of 2021 under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking to punish her husband for irregular payment of maintenance. It is an admitted fact that the husband filed Crl.MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008 under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking reduction of maintenance amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.8,000/- suppressing pendency of Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012, filed by him with similar relief. Further, it is also an admitted fact that due to his non-compliance of interim order passed on 18.07.2012 directing the husband to clear of the arrears of maintenance, the said interim order was vacated. Accordingly, aggrieved by registration of Crl.MP No.904 of 2018 before the trial Court, the wife filed Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 seeking to quash the same.
15. So far as the property disputes between the parties is concerned, this Court is nothing to do with the same. The scope of revision is very limited and this Court, in a revision, looks only into the Page 11 of 12 errors, if any, on the face of the record or whether there is any legal flaw in the findings of the Courts below. Since alternative remedies are very much available for the parties to decide the ownership of the properties, now this Court cannot look into the said aspect while deciding these two matters.
16. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the husband is not fair enough in approaching the learned trial Court by filing Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 suppressing the fact of pendency of Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 filed by him. Further, he failed to pay monthly maintenance to his wife as ordered by the Court. It is his bounden duty to maintain his wife to prevent her from starvation since she is not gainfully employed. In that view of the matter, without going deep into the law laid down in the above decisions, relied upon by both the parties, this Court holds that the prayer of the wife made through Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 to quash Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 appears to be reasonable and whereas, the prayer of the petitioner/husband made through Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned appellant Court is not acceptable. However, in view of the fact that the husband is a retired person and now eking out his livelihood with the pension amount and also by doing a petty job, this Court feels it apt to decrease the compensation amount, as Page 12 of 12 awarded by the trial Court and modified by the appellate Court. Accordingly, the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/- from Rs. 10,00,000/-.
17. Except the above modification with regard to quantum of compensation amount, the Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012, in all other aspects, stands dismissed. Further, the Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 is allowed quashing the proceedings in Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :22.11-2023 abb