Mohammed Shoeb vs The State Of Talangana And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 567 Tel

 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    Crl.R.C.No.78 OF 2023

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is arising out of the judgment

dated 20.01.2023, in Crl.A.No.1032 of 2019 on the file of

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which arose out of the

orders in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019, in DVC.No.9 of 2019 dated

22.10.2019, on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic

Mobile Court) Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be

referred to, as they are arrayed in Domestic Violence Case. The

revision petitioner herein is the respondent in DVC.

3. The revision petitioner/respondent has challenged the

orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.642 of 2019, before the appellate

Court wherein the revision petitioner was directed to pay

Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards interim maintenance,

from the date of order, till the disposal of main DVC and further

shall pay the said maintenance on or before 10th of every month

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023

either directly to the petitioner or into the bank account of

petitioner.

4. The appellate Court after considering the contentions of

the appellant have confirmed the orders in Crl.M.P.No.642 of

2019 dated 22.10.2019.

5. Being aggrieved by the orders of both the Courts below,

the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred. The revision

petitioner is the husband of the respondent/petitioner in the DVC.

Initially, the DVC was filed by the wife/petitioner contending

that her marriage was performed with the respondent on

24.07.2017. A defer dower of Rs.11,000/-, cash of Rs.5 lakhs

was paid on demand. Further, they gave 15 tolas of gold

ornaments, 51 tolas of silver ornaments, bullet motorcycle, jahez

articles worth of Rs.5 lakhs two days prior to marriage. After

few days of their marriage, misunderstanding arose between

them and the revision petitioner/respondent sold away the gold

and silver ornaments belonging to the petitioner and harassed her

physically and mentally, threatened to kill her or pronounce

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023

divorce in order to marry another woman and also demanded for

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner before the trial

Court that the respondent is running meat business and supply it

to hotels, function halls etc., and was earning monthly income of

Rs.50,000/- to Rs.70,000/- p.m. and also receiving rents of

Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- p.m. and prayed to grant interim

maintenance.

7. The revision petitioner/respondent filed a detailed counter

denying all the material allegations and prayed to dismiss the

application. But, the trial Court has granted Rs.7,000/- p.m. as

interim maintenance to the petitioner therein.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Perused the record.

9. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner that despite of producing document i.e.,

certificate issued by the employer of respondent, neither the trial

Court nor the appellate Court considered the said document

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023

which proves the earnings of revision petitioner. Therefore, non

considering the documents is the error and irregularity in the

orders of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. It is the

further contention of the learned counsel that the Memorandum

of grounds also discloses the appellant has filed a document i.e.,

the certificate dated 11.09.2019 issued by his employer i.e. Taj

Mutton Shop showing that he is working as labour and is earning

upto Rs.150/- per day. The said document was filed before the

trial Court to prove his income which was not considered by

either of the Courts below and therefore prayed to set aside the

orders of both the Courts below.

10. On hearing the contentions of the counsel for the appellant

and on perusal of the orders of both the Courts below, it is

evident that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has

discussed about the document which was filed by the respondent

herein. Without going into merits, this Court is of the considered

view that it is just and necessary for the trial Court to consider

the document filed by the revision petitioner herein and to pass

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No78 of 2023

orders afresh considering the document filed by the respondent

i.e., certificate dated 11.09.2019.

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed

setting aside the orders dated 20.01.2023 in Crl.A.No.1032 of

2019, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and

consequently the orders dated 22.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.642 of

2019 in DVC.N.09 of 2019 on the file of III Metropolitan

Magistrate are also hereby set aside and the matter is remanded

back to the trial Court/III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic

Mobile Court) Hyderabad, for passing orders afresh after hearing

the parties and considering the document i.e. employment

certificate.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J

Date: 03.02.2023 dv