Telangana High Court
Alluri Prasanna Kumar vs The State Of Telangana, on 5 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1993 of 2018
ORDER:
The present criminal revision case is filed under
Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment
dated 28.03.2018 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016 passed by the Court
of Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal (for short the
'appellate Court') by modifying the order dated 09.12.2015 in
D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 passed by the learned I Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal (for short 'the trial
Court').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein. At
the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2
presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 1 ½ Tulas of gold and also
Rs.55,000/- to purchase a two-wheeler. On the next day of
marriage, the petitioner forcibly took a promise from
respondent No.2 that she will not force for natural children
and she has to accept for adoption of a child and that when
she tried to reveal the same to the elders of both sides, the
petitioner has requested her that he will inform the same to
them after some period and that subsequently she continued
her studies at Hyderabad and the petitioner was working at
Adilabad as a Sub-Inspector in the Communication
Department and they used to meet occasionally.
3. On 01.06.2007, the petitioner was transferred from
Adilabad to Hyderabad and since respondent No.2 has also
completed her studies, both of them started living at
Hyderabad and the parents and relatives of the petitioner
used to visit them very often and used to pick-up petty
issues and used to raise allegations against her thus
provocating the petitioner into anger and slowly the
relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 got
strained and at one instance, respondent No.2 went to her
parents house and stayed there for about three months and
she worked as a Lecturer at SVIT Engineering College at
Secunderabad, one day she fell unconscious at the College
and immediately, the College Authorities informed to the
petitioner and after her recovery, she went with the petitioner
to Hyderabad and there the petitioner harassed her both
mentally and physically for three months for want of salary
from her. The petitioner also alleged illicit intimacy on her.
4. Later on, respondent No.2 left the company of the
petitioner, a panchayat was convened by the elders on both
sides, found fault with the petitioner and his family members
and warned them. Though a written resolution was passed
at the panchayat the petitioner and his family members
snatched away the agreement and tore it into pieces and
thereafter, they did not turn up to take back respondent
No.2. Later, respondent No.2 filed D.V.C. before the trial
Court seeking protection order, residential order and
maintenance.
5. The trial Court vide order dated 09.12.2015 in
D.V.C.No.17 of 2010 has allowed the case by directing the
petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards
maintenance, further Rs.3,000/- per month for separate
residence and also Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation
within six months from the date of receipt of that order.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 preferred Criminal
Appeal No.12 of 2016 before the appellate Court to grant
protection order prohibiting respondent Nos.1 to 5 in D.V.C
from interfering with respondent No.2 day-to-day life and
also directed the petitioner to take respondent No.2 and
provide separate residence and also to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.
6. The learned Judge, appellate Court vide order dated
28.03.2018 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016 has partly allowed the
appeal, setting aside the order dated 09.12.2015 passed in
D.V.C.No.17 of 2010, in-so-far-as directing to the petitioner
to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards
compensation within in six months from the date of that
order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the
present criminal revision case.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-
State and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the learned Courts below have erred in awarding
maintenance in favour of respondent No.2, who left the
company of the petitioner voluntarily and respondent No.2 is
a highly qualified woman and working as a Lecturer in SVIT
Engineering College, Secunderabad as such, respondent
No.2 is earning handsome amount which is sufficient to
maintain herself, therefore, she is not entitled to claim
maintenance from the petitioner. Hence, seeks to allow this
criminal revision case by setting aside the order passed by
the learned appellate Court in Crl.A.No.12 of 2016.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would
submit that the learned appellate Court, after careful
scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly
passed the judgment and the interference of this Court, at
this stage, is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the
criminal revision case.
10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State is present and concedes to the submissions
made by the counsel for respondent No.2.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent-State and upon perusing the
material available on record, this Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed
by the Court below.
12. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed.
Granting liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent No.2
to work out the remedies as available under the law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall also
stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Dated: 05.12.2023
vsu
