T. Sudeer Kuamr vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3101 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                     CRL.R.C.No.695 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.344 of 2019, on the file of the

learned XV-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

at Kukatpally, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner

herein was dismissed, modifying the order dated 10.08.2018 dated

Crl.M.P.No.841 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.47 of 2017, on the file of the

learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally

(FAC XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally) to the extent of

directing the petitioner herein to pay the maintenance granted by

the trial court from the date of order, instead of from the date of

petition.

2. The second respondent herein is wife of the petitioner

herein. She filed D.V.C.No.47 of 2017 before the trial court

against the petitioner herein, her in-laws and others for grant of

reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20(d) and 22 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'),

including award of maintenance. In the said proceedings, the

second respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.841 of 2017 under Section

23(2) of Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month

from the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the petition by filing

counter. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate

allowed the petition granting maintenance at Rs.8,000/- per month

to the second respondent from the date of filing of the petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred appeal in

Crl.A.No.344 of 2019. Pending appeal, the petitioner herein filed

Crl.M.P.No.330 of 2019 seeking to suspend the orders dated

10.08.2018 passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.841 of 2017 in

D.V.C.No.47 of 2017, awarding maintenance of Rs.8000/- per

month to the second respondent herein. The appellate court

dismissed the said petition by modifying the order dated

10.08.2018 dated Crl.M.P.No.841 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.47 of 2017

to the extent of directing the petitioner herein to pay the

maintenance granted by the trial court from the date of order,

instead of from the date of petition. Aggrieved thereby, the

petitioner herein filed this revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the second respondent. Perused the record.

4. The marriage of the petitioner with the second respondent

was performed on 08.02.2015 and that the said marriage was

consummated and no children were born out of the said wedlock

and it was an arranged marriage. Later, differences and disputes

arose between them and the petitioner filed domestic violence case

against the petitioner herein and others seeking the reliefs as stated

above.

5. The second respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.841 of 2017 before

the trial court under Section 23(2) of Act seeking interim

maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month from the petitioner on the

ground that due to disputes and differences between her and the

petitioner, she is living separately since August, 2016 in a rented

house and due to the torture and mental agony she underwent in the

hands of the petitioner and also for the reason that if she continues

to stay with her parents, it will be difficult for her parents to

perform her sister's marriage and that she is unable to maintain

herself. She further stated that the petitioner is having sufficient

means and earning Rs.50,000/-, apart from the rental income.

The petitioner opposed the petition by filing counter. He has not

disputed the marriage between them and also that the marriage was

an arranged one and that they are living separately since August,

2016. He denied that he earning Rs.50,000/- besides the rental

income. The petitioner stated that, in fact, the second respondent is

working in Infosys as Software Engineer and earning Rs.50,000/-

per month and that she is not entitled for any maintenance.

6. The point that arises for consideration is - whether the

second respondent is entitled for maintenance at Rs.8,000/- per

month from the date of impugned order and whether the impugned

order suffers from any illegality or infirmity and needs

interference?

7. As per the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, the

Magistrate is competent to grant interim maintenance if on an

application filed by the victim prima facie discloses that the

respondent has committed an act of domestic violence and an

application is filed to grant interim maintenance, he can pass such

an interim order as he deems just and proper.

8. A perusal of the order of the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.841 of

2017 goes to show that the petitioner has not produced any

documentary evidence to show that the second respondent is

working as Software Engineer and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.

Though the second respondent admitted in the DVC petition that

she is getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and after standard

deductions, her net salary is Rs.20,000/- per month, even taking

into consideration the said salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, the

same may not be sufficient to maintain herself for the reason that

she is living separately from her parents, as it would become

difficult for her parents to perform her sister's marriage. In the

revision, though the petitioner submitted that the second

respondent is working in Infosys and earning more than

Rs.50,000/- per month, but he has not placed any documentary

evidence in support of the said contention. The second respondent

has specifically pleaded that she is not having sufficient means to

maintain herself and granting of monthly maintenance at

Rs.8,000/- per month to her is not on higher side.

9. After taking into consideration the material available on

record and keeping in view of the present day cost of living and the

basic needs of the second respondent, the trial court has awarded

the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the second respondent

herein and the appellate court has rightly declined to suspend the

operation of order of the trial court.

10. The second respondent herein alleged that the petitioner is

working as Assistant Professor in St. Martin's Engineering

College, Kompally and getting a monthly salary of Rs.5,0,000/-,

besides the rental income of Rs.30,000/- per month and in support

of the said contention, she has not filed any document to prove the

same. However, it appears that the petitioner has got sufficient

means to provide maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month awarded by

the trial court as an interim measure and the same cannot be

interfered at this stage. All the contentions agitated by the second

respondent before this court can be agitated before the trial court

during the course of trial in DVC.

11. In view of the above, the impugned order of the appellate

court declining to suspend the orders of the trial court granting

Rs.8,000/- per month to the second respondent towards

maintenance needs no interference as it does not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity.

12. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 28.06.2022 Lrkm