Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Soujanya vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9452 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2022 in M.C.No.8 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court, Secunderabad and consequently, to direct respondent No.2 to pay Rs.2,95,000/- per month to the petitioners towards interim maintenance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed M.C.No.8 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against respondent No.2 stating that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 16.11.2000. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children (i.e., one girl and one boy) aged about 19 years and 12 years respectively. After the marriage, respondent No.2 changed his attitude from bad to worse and due to some of the incidents occurred in the marital life with 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023 respondent No.2 while staying with him and unethical abuse of her daughter, she left her marital house and went to her father's house to have a safe and secured environment for her kids. Later, petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before Police against respondent No.2-husband on 30.06.2021 and the same was registered as Crime No.565 of 2021. Subsequently, she lodged another complaint before Police against her father-in-law and the same was registered as Crime No.201 of 2021. From June, 2021, respondent No.2 is not maintaining her and her children. He being the husband and father of minor daughter and son is ignoring his liability to maintain them. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2022 under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to them Rs.2,95,000/- per month till the disposal of the main petition and the same was allowed in part directing respondent No.2 to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.20,000/- to petitioner No.3 from the date of order. The claim against petitioner No.2 is dismissed. Hence, the present Criminal Petition.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023
3. Heard Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Dama N. Sai Chand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 is working in Central Government O.N.G.C., and is getting salary of Rs.3,00,000/- per month and Rs.3,60,000/- from rental and other side businesses. That apart, he owns moveable and immovable properties in and around Hyderabad worth about crores. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is well settled and it is his bounden duty to take care and welfare of the petitioners being husband and father by providing basic necessities. Without considering the same, the trial Court granted very meager amount to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed the maintenance against petitioner No.2 without assigned any reason, as such, prayed to set aside the petition and grant maintenance to petitioner No.2 also.
4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata and Ors 1, wherein in paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it is held as follows:
"3. In view of the finding record and the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the order calls for interference. A similar question came up for consideration by this Court in the case of Noor Sabha Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim 1997 SCC (Crl) 924:
MANU/SC/0827/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 3280 relating to the claim of a Muslim divorced woman for maintenance from her husband for herself and her minor children. This Court while accepting the position that Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure does not fix liability of parents to maintain children beyond attainment of majority, read the said provision and Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Womwn (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act together and held that under the latter statutory provision liability of providing maintenance extends beyond attainment of majority of a dependent girl.
4. Applying the principle to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is manifest that the right of a minor girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized in Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge for maintaining the order passed by the Family Court which is based on a combined reading of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and 1 MANU/SC/1416/2002 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023 Maintenance Act. For the reasons aforestated we are of the view that on facts and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment order of the High Court is called for."
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that petitioner No.2 attained majority prior to filing of the present petition. Coming to petitioner No.1 she became insecure and distant from respondent No.2 and she taken away the children from their own biological father with an intention to torture him and filed false cases under POSCO Act, 2012. She also filed D.V.C.No.49 of 2022, Crime No.565 of 2021 and Crime No.201 of 2021 with false and baseless allegations. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is sending monthly expenses of Rs.20,000/- towards medical and other expenses in addition to miscellaneous expenditure. The petitioners are claiming maintenance exorbitantly. Petitioner No.1 is an MBA graduate, she owns 2 BHK flat in Amberpet and she is enjoying rental income amount to Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month and apart from that she is getting rental income from another 1 BHK flat at Kukatpally. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 6
SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, the maintenance awarded by the trial Court to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 is sufficient in view of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2, as such, there is no need to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Further, the claim against petitioner No.2 was dismissed by the trial Court and no reasons were mentioned to that effect. As it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the unmarried daughter, who attained the majority, may not be entitled for maintenance from her parents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and such right is recognized under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and on combined reading of the above two provisions, the Family Court is entitled to grant maintenance to an unmarried daughter even after attaining majority, provided she is unable to maintain herself.
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of directing petitioner No.2 to file an appropriate application 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9452 of 2023 under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, for claiming maintenance.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 20.03.2024 SAI