Telangana High Court
Smt Chilivery Sreedevi Rao And ... vs Chilivery Damodar Rao And 4 Others on 28 April, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.209 of 2023
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed to set aside the order,
dated 06.12.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.131 of 2021 in
Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2021 in D.V.C. No.27 of 2021 on file of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-II Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, M.M District, at Kukatpally.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.5.
3. The petitioners have filed D.V.C.No.27 of 2021 against
respondent Nos.1 to 4. Initially, the petitioners have filed
Crl.M.P.No.307 of 2021 in DVC No.27 of 2021 against respondent
Nos.1 to 4. The 1st respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner
and the 2nd petitioner is the son of respondent No.1 and petitioner
No.1, aged about five years at the time of filing D.V.C.
4. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners filed maintenance petition for an
amount of Rs.75,000/- per month and also to pay Rs.25,000/-
towards education of the 2nd petitioner and equal sum towards
medical expenses of the 1st petitioner. A detailed counter was filed
by the respondents denying all the contentions of the petitioners.
5. A perusal of the detailed counter filed by the respondents
discloses that petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent
No.1. During the subsistence of marriage, one male child was born
to them, who is aged about 5 years. Petitioners are residing in
Tower 1, Flat No.1510, Swan Lake Apartments, Kukatpally,
Hyderabad and respondent No.1 left the company of petitioners.
The trial Court in its order dated 30.03.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.307 of
2021 in D.V.C.No.27 of 2021, noticed that respondent No.1 has
bounden duty to provide basic amenities and also accommodation
to the petitioners pending disposal of main D.V.C. and passed
order directing respondent No.1 to provide shelter to petitioners till
disposal of the case. If respondent No.1 has no capacity to provide
permanent residence, then he can pay rent for the said apartment
where petitioners are staying or he may allocate any other
residence to the petitioners immediately. The trial Court further
directed respondent No.1 to take responsibility of petitioner No.2
regarding his education and directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- to the petitioners from the date of petition until further
orders or till disposal of the main petition.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 i.e., husband
of petitioner No.1 has preferred an appeal. Initially, docket order,
dated 21.06.2021, was passed by the first appellate Court in
Crl.M.P.No.596 of 2021 in Crl.A.No.131 of 2021, partly allowing
the petition and directed respondent No.1 to comply the order dated
30.03.2021 passed by the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate
in Crl.MP.No.307 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.27 of 2021 so far as
payment of interim maintenance amount is concerned and
suspended the direction with regard to providing shelter to the
petitioners, pending disposal of the appeal.
7. Subsequently, the first appellate Court on 06.12.2022 has
allowed the criminal appeal setting aside the order dated
30.03.2021 in Crl.MP.No.307 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.27 of 2021 and
directed the trial Court to decide the petition afresh by following
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh v.
Neha, 1.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that petitioners have filed all the documents including the assets
and liabilities of both the parties and trial Court disposed of the
Crl.MP.No.307 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.27 of 2021 in favour of the
petitioners and the first appellate Court, at the time of disposing of
the appeal, remanded the matter to decide afresh and therefore, it is
just and necessary to set aside the orders of the appellate Court, as
there is every necessity for the petitioners to have maintenance
towards their livelihood.
9. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that as per
Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of DVC (Domestic Violence Act),
the Court is empowered to grant reliefs to the parties as far as
shelter, maintenance and compensation are concerned and there is
no error or irregularity in the orders of the trial Court and so prayed
to confirm the orders of the trial Court.
(2021) 2 SCC 324
10. After considering the entire material on record, this Court is
of the considered view that the matter is only remanded back to the
trial Court to pass orders afresh as per the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's Case(supra). Therefore, there
is no error in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. If
the statement of assets and liabilities of both the parties are
available, the trial Court, instead of wasting time, can consider all
those documents and if at all those documents are not placed before
the trial Court, it may direct the parties to place all the documents
and pass necessary orders on or before 15.06.2023.
11. With the above observations, Criminal Revision Case is
disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 28.04.2023
Lk
