Kammati Rajender vs Smt. Kammati Vinoda
2022 Latest Caselaw 5691 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

               CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.150 of 2020


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-

respondent against the order dated 12.10.2019 passed in MC No.383

of 2013 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of

Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum

XXIII Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The parties hereinafter are referred as per their array before the

trial court.

3. The petitioners (i.e. respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed MC No.383

of 2013 against the respondent (petitioner herein) on the file of the

Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming monthly

maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. As per the facts of the case in the MC,

the 1st petitioner was married with the respondent on 14.02.2001 as

per the Hindu rites and customs at Siddipet, Medak District. At the

time of marriage, the mother of the 1st petitioner provided a sum of Dr.GRR,J ::2:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

Rs.40,000/- and ½ tula of gold ring as dowry as demanded by the

respondent apart from 2 tulas of gold ornaments, household articles

and incurred Rs.1,00,000/- for the marriage. Subsequently, the

1st petitioner came to know that the respondent suppressed the fact that

he divorced his first wife on 24.01.1997 vide OP No.89 of 1996 on the

file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. When

the 1st petitioner enquired with him about the same, he got angry and

beat her mercilessly and also tried to kill her by pressing her neck.

The 1st petitioner contended that the respondent used to keep her under

lock and key in the house, demanded additional dowry of Rs.60,000/-

and started neglecting her and beating her. On 08.10.2005, the

respondent beat the 1st petitioner mercilessly and tried to kill her with

a knife. Due to the intervention of the neighbours, she escaped from

his hands. The respondent necked her out of the house when she was

pregnant of three months by demanding Rs.60,000/- to get from her

mother. The 1st petitioner gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on

10.04.2006 at Mediciti Hospital at Medchal. Her delivery expenses

amounting to Rs.20,000/- were borne by her mother. The said news

was intimated to the respondent. But, the respondent did not turn up

to see the child. He filed OP No.480 of 2005 on the file of the Dr.GRR,J ::3:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar,

seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In the said OP, the

1st petitioner filed I.A. No.433 of 2007 under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite. The said I.A was

allowed on 02.08.2007 granting pendente lite maintenance of

Rs.3,000/- per month and legal expenses. Against the said order, the

respondent filed CRP No.1203 of 2008. This Court granted interim

stay on condition of paying Rs.1,000/- per month and depositing of

Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses. Thereafter, the CRP was also

disposed of allowing it partly by reducing the pendente lite

maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month, pending

disposal of OP No.480 of 2005 on 29.09.2010. The respondent had

not paid maintenance to the 1st petitioner regularly. Both the parties

compromised the matter during the pendency of OP and the OP was

dismissed on 21.11.2011 in terms of compromise. Both the parties

continued their marital life, but after 3 to 4 months, again the

respondent started harassing the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner gave

birth to the 3rd petitioner on 13.03.2013. The 1st petitioner continued

her marital life with the respondent considering the future of her

children, but the respondent beat her severely and necked her out of Dr.GRR,J ::4:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

the house on 04.07.2013. Having no other go, the 1st petitioner

returned to her mother's house and was living at her mercy at

Begumpet. The 1st petitioner further submitted that the respondent

was working as Office Subordinate in the office of the Engineer in

Chief (AW), Irrigation and CAD Department, Jalasoudha, Erramanzil,

Hyderabad and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.23,490/- and the

respondent was a money lender and used to give hand loans to others,

he was also having own houses and was getting additional income of

Rs.50,000/-, and the total monthly income of the respondent was

Rs.73,490/-.

4. The respondent filed counter admitting the relationship between

him and the 1st petitioner and that the petitioners 2 and 3 were born

out of the wedlock. But, he denied that dowry was given at the time of

marriage. He contended that the delivery expenses were borne by him

only and due to the cruelty of the 1st petitioner, he filed divorce

petition vide OP No.480 of 2005. He contended that during the

pendency of the said case, the 1st petitioner and her family members

approached him and assured that the 1st petitioner would not repeat her

behaviour. As the 1st petitioner accepted her guilt and considering the Dr.GRR,J ::5:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

future of the minor son, the respondent agreed to lead marital life with

the 1st petitioner. But, within a short period of time, she again

repeated her past behaviour and started harassing the respondent. He

also admitted that during the said period, the 3rd petitioner was born

and stated that all the expenses were borne by him.

5. He contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.14,000/- per

month and he was having a widow sister who was totally dependent

on him and he was also having two other sisters, who used to visit his

house regularly. He was also suffering with neck problem and had

undergone surgery and was taking medicines regularly and had to bear

the entire expenses from his meagre salary. He contended that the 1st

petitioner and her mother used to work as Aayas and they were

earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He also provided a job to

the brother of 1st petitioner, by name, Nagaraj on out sourcing in

Irrigation Department and he was getting a monthly salary of

Rs.20,000/- and prayed to dismiss the MC.

6. During the course of trial, the 1st petitioner examined herself as

PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P9. The respondent examined himself as

RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5.

                                                                         Dr.GRR,J
                                   ::6::                     Crlrc No.150 of 2020

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,

the trial court allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay

Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioners 1 to 3 totalling

Rs.18,000/- per month towards their maintenance from the date of the

order.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred this

revision contending that the trial court failed to appreciate the fact that

as per Exs.X1 to X6 (payslips of the respondent) his salary was only

Rs.33,000/- per month, but considered it as more than Rs.50,000/-.

The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that the 1st petitioner left

the company of the respondent voluntarily without intimation and she

used to harass the revision petitioner and filed false cases and the

DVC case filed by her was also pending. The trial court failed to

appreciate that during the pendency of the OP filed by the respondent

vide OP No.480 of 2005 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the 1st petitioner and her family

members approached the respondent and settled the matter. The trial

court failed to appreciate that the petitioner filed false cases against Dr.GRR,J ::7:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

the respondent before the Mahila Police Station and started harassing

him due to which a writ petition was filed by the respondent vide WP

No.22508 of 2014 and the matter was closed. The trial court had not

appreciated the evidence of the respondent and the exhibits filed by

him and prayed to allow the revision.

9. Heard learned counsel for the respondent (revision petitioner)

and the learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents).

10. Perused the record and the order of the trial court in MC No.383

of 2013. The trial court on considering the pleadings and evidence of

the parties, observed that the relationship between the parties was an

admitted fact and that since 2013, both the parties were living

separately and that the respondent was a Government employee.

11. With regard to the contention of the respondent that the 1st

petitioner voluntarily left his company, the trial court observed that

the respondent had not specified whether he had taken any steps to

bring her back to his company and to take care of the minor children

by paying the maintenance and school fee. Except making an

allegation that the 1st petitioner used to visit her parents frequently, no Dr.GRR,J ::8:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

other allegations were made against her to prove her cruelty towards

him. The trial court also observed that the respondent was not paying

any amount towards the maintenance of the petitioners and was not

taking them back to his company being husband of the 1st petitioner

and father of the petitioners 2 and 3, he neglected to maintain them

though he was a government servant and was drawing a good salary.

12. With regard to the salary of the respondent, the trial court had

taken into consideration Exs.X1 to X6, salary slips of the respondent,

produced by the Drawing and Disbursement Officer for the months

from February 2018 to July 2018. The trial court observed that as per

the payslips of July 2018, the gross salary of the respondent was

Rs.49,181/- and his net salary was Rs.37,453/- and as one year had

lapsed, by the date of passing the order, observed that definitely there

would be an increase in the salary of the respondent and awarded only

Rs.6,000/- per month each to the petitioners 1 to 3 towards their

maintenance. This court does not find any illegality or impropriety in

the order of the Family Court in coming to the said conclusion.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

the respondent was only paying Rs.7,000/- per month to the Dr.GRR,J ::9:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

petitioners 1 to 3 even after the judgment passed by the court below in

MC No.383 of 2013 and the respondent was due to pay Rs.11,000/-

per month from 12.10.2019.

14. As the trial court awarded the maintenance after considering the

pleadings and evidence of both the parties and considering the gross

salary of the respondent as revealed from the payslips, marked under

Exs.X1 to X6, it is considered fit to dismiss the revision case

upholding the orders of the trial court in MC No.383 of 2013.

However, as the court below awarded the maintenance from the date

of the order, it is considered fit to modify the same by awarding it

from the date of the petition.

15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholding

the order dated 12.10.2019 passed in MC No.383 of 2013 by the

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills

Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII

Additional Chief Judge cum IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad. The revision petitioner (respondent) is directed to

pay the maintenance as awarded by the court below to the respondents

(petitioners) from the date of the petition and to pay the arrears of Dr.GRR,J ::10:: Crlrc No.150 of 2020

maintenance due from the date of petition till date within a period of

two (2) months from the date of this order and continue to pay the

maintenance as awarded, on or before 10th of every succeeding month.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J November 08, 2022 KTL