Telangana High Court
Captain Ramesh Kumar Deewan vs Mrs. Ashuma Deewan And Another on 22 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1147 OF 2012
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2456 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER :
Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 is filed by the
petitioner/husband under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure
Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.06.2012
in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad
wherein the order dated 20.01.2011 in DVC No. 17 of 2008, on the file
of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri, Ranga
Reddy District was confirmed. Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 is
filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to
quash the proceedings in Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of
2008, on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad,
Ranga Reddy District.
2. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 and respondent
No.1 in Crl.P.No.2456 of 2021, Sri Prabhakar Sripada, learned senior
counsel representing Sri Setty Ravi Teja, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.2456 of 2021 and respondent No.1 in Crl.RC No.
1147 of 2012 and also Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. Since the parties to these two matters are one and the
same and the issue involved is interlinked, these two matters are
disposed of through this common order. For the sake of brevity and
convenience, the parties to these matters are hereinafter referred to as
wife and husband.
4. DVC No.17 of 2008, on the file of learned X Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri was filed by the wife Mrs.Ashuma
Deewan against her husband Captain Ramesh Kumar Deewan under
the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 claiming reliefs of Protection Order under Section 18 of the Act,
Residence Order under Section 19 of the Act, Maintenance Order under
Section 20 of the Act and compensation under Section 22 of the Act.
The case of the wife against her husband was that he was arrogant,
short tempered, used to pickup quarrel on each and every small issue
and abuse her physically and mentally and went to the extent of pulling
her hair and banging her head against the wall and also sat on her
chest and banged her head to the floor and hence, the matter was
reported to the employer officials of the husband i.e. Air Force
Authorities in front of whom the husband publicly expressed his
apologies with a view to escape from the punishment and till his
retirement he was kept under surveillance and under control of senior
officials and after retirement, he restarted his ill-treatment against the
wife and manhandled her on number of occasions and threatened her
with dire consequences. The wife, keeping in view of welfare of their
children, tolerated such harassment. Finally on 16.03.2008 the
husband severely beat his wife on right cheek and left underarm and
hence, a report dated 17.03.2008 was registered. Under these
circumstances, the wife filed DVC No. 17 of 2008.
5. The husband denied all these allegations and contended
that after marriage of 31 years, the present DVC is filed with false and
baseless allegations. He further contended that due to the negligence of
his wife, his mother died and when he questioned his wife, she picked
up quarrel and threatened to complain the higher authorities of the
husband and that she used to frequently go to her parents' house
without any intimation. He further contended that the house where
they lived was purchased by him out of his hard earned money in the
name of his wife.
6. The learned trial Court, considering the oral evidence of
PWs.1 to 4, RWs.1 and 2, documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P86 and
Exs.R1 to R17 allowed DVC No. 17 of 2008 granting the reliefs as
extracted hereunder:
"(i) By granting Protection Order under Section
18 of the Act by restraining the respondent (husband)
from committing any acts of Domestic Violence against
the petitioner (wife).
(ii) By granting Residence Order under Section
19 of the Act permitting the petitioner (wife) to stay in
house No.E19, Sainikpuri by restraining the respondent
(husband) from dispossessing or disturbing the
possession of the petitioner (wife) and also directing the
respondent (husband) to remove himself from the
shared household.
(iii) By granting a monthly maintenance of
Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner (wife) from the respondent
(husband) under Section 20 of the Act with a direction
to the respondent (husband) to pay the above
maintenance on or before 10th of every month.
(iv) By granting compensation of Rs.25 lakhs to
the petitioner (wife) from the respondent (husband)
under Section 22 of the Act with a direction to the
respondent (husband) to pay the above compensation
within three months from the date of this order."
7. Aggrieved by the said findings, the husband preferred
Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2021 before the learned Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad wherein as per judgment
dated 01.06.2012, believing that the husband meted out torture to the
wife, the learned appellate Court confirmed the findings of the learned
trial Court but reduced the compensation amount from Rs.25,00,000/-
to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the
husband preferred Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 mainly
contending that both the Courts below highly placed reliance on Ex.P13
separation deed, which has no evidentiary value after the husband was
out of service. The official documents, relied upon by both the Courts
below, do not found place in the official records of the employer of the
husband. The apology letter given by the husband was obtained
exerting pressure on him. Both the Courts below failed to consider the
fact that the residence, where both the parties resided, was purchased
by the husband with his hard earned monies in the name of his wife
and the said fact is very much evident from the bank transactions,
showing transfer of the said money from the account of husband to the
account of builder. Fixation of maintenance amount at Rs.50,000/- per
month is an erroneous one and on high side since he is a retired person
and eking out his life on his pension and on the earnings of his petty
job after retirement without having any other financial source. Further,
both the Courts below failed to take into consideration his financial
constraints and obligations. The husband made several deposits in the
name of his wife out of his earnings but instead of such situation, both
the Courts below have erroneously ordered him to give huge amount
towards compensation to the wife. Thus stating he requested to allow
Criminal Revision Case No. 1147 of 2012.
9. Criminal RC No. 1147 of 2012 was filed by the husband
before the erstwhile High Court for the composite State of Andhra
Pradesh wherein on 18.07.2012 an interim suspension of order dated
30.01.2011 in DVC No.17 of 2008 before the learned trial Court, which
was modified as per judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 before
the learned appellate Court, was granted and later on 28.11.2013 the
High Court passed order stating that the interim order granted on
18.07.2012 shall continue only on payment of arrears of maintenance
from March, 2013 within ten days and continuation of payment of
maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month by the
husband. Since the husband failed to pay the maintenance, as directed
by the trial Court, the interim order passed on 18.07.2012 stood
vacated. It is contended by the wife that the husband paid only
Rs.15,000/- per month from September, 2018 and fell due an amount
of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards arrears of monthly maintenance and
Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and hence, the wife filed Crl.MP
No.7 of 2019 in DVC No. 17 of 2008 before the learned trial Court.
10. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner (husband) in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 relied upon the
following decisions:
(i) Chandrababu Alias Moses Vs. State through Inspector
of Police and others 1.
(ii) Mohammed Iftequar Uddin Siddique, Hyderabad Vs.
Mohammed Ghouse Mohiuddin, Hyderabad PP and
others 2.
(iii) Reshma Banu and another Vs. Mohd.Abdul Qayyum and
others 3.
(iv) Mohammed Shoeb Vs. State of Telangana and another 4.
(v) Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another 5.
(vi) Madhusudhan Bhardwaj and others Vs. Mamta
Bhardwaj 6.
(vii) Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and another 7.
(viii) Ramachandra Warrior Vs. Jayasree and another 8.
(ix) ITC Limited Vs. Aashna Roy 9.
(x) Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S.
Dhananka and others 10.
11. It is the contention of the wife that suppressing the true
and real facts, the husband, mischievously filed Crl.MP No.904 of 2018
in DVC No.17 of 2008 under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. before the
learned trial Court seeking reduction of maintenance amount from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. Whereas, the wife filed Crl.MP No. 149 of
1 (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 774
2 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3105
2022 SCC OnLine TS 1179
2023 SCC OnLine TS 321
5 (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 667
2009 Crl.LJ 3095
7 (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 588
8 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 1444
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 87
The Supreme Court Cases (2009) 6 SCC
2021 under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, seeking to punish her husband, which petition has been
clubbed with Crl.MP No.904 of 2018. It is the further contention of wife
that the learned trial Court erred in numbering Crl.MP No.904 of 2018
where the issue is directly sub- judice before this Court in Criminal RC
No.1147 of 2012. Accordingly, aggrieved by registration of Crl.MP
No.904 of 2018, the wife filed Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021.
12. In support of their contention learned counsel for the 1st
respondent (Wife) in Crl.RC No.1147 of 2012 relied upon the following
decisions:
(i) Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani 11.
(ii) Shankar K. Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and
others 12.
(iii) State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and
another 13.
(iv) Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs.
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another 14.
(v) Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others Vs. State of
Telangana rep. by Public Prosecutor and another 15.
(vi) State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
Namboodiri 16.
(vii) Amar Ghand Agarwalla Vs. Shanti Bose and another
etc., 17.
(viii) Logendranath Jha and others Vs. Polai Lal Biswas 18
(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 595
(2003)9 Supreme Court Cases 519
(1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 463
(2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 774
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd18
(1999) 2 Supreme Court Cases 452
(1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 10
(ix) Taron Mohan Vs. State and another 19.
(x) Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and others 20.
(xi) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 21.
(xii) G.Sudhakar represented by his Power of Attorney Agent
K.Gopal Vs. S.Lakshmi Priya 22.
13. This Court heard the elaborate arguments on either side
and perused the material available on record including the decisions
relied upon by both sides. Upon perusal of various orders germane from
the subject matters, it is clear that due to the disputes between the
parties various litigations were sprouted out and various reliefs were
granted in favour of the wife and against the husband but the husband,
to dilute the gravity of financial burden in compliance of the said
orders, is trying tooth and nail. The harassment meted out to the wife
is not in dispute. The disputes between the couple reached the higher
officials of the husband before whom he expressed his apology to his
wife and made promise to be well with her in future and accordingly, no
departmental action has been initiated against him. Though the
petitioner contended that his signature was taken on the apology letter
by exerting pressure, he failed to give convincing explanation for
higher-ups acting against him in such a passion. The law is well
1951 SCC 856
2021 SCC OnLine Del.311
(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 353
(2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324
Crl.RC No.1471 of 2018 (Madras High Court)
settled that the husband cannot escape from his liability of paying
maintenance to his wife, who is not gainfully employed.
14. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down in the
above decisions relied upon by both sides but their applicability to the
facts of the present case is matter to be decided. In the present case,
the wife filed Crl.MP No.149 of 2021 under Section 31 of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking to punish her
husband for irregular payment of maintenance. It is an admitted fact
that the husband filed Crl.MP No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008
under Section 127(1) of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court seeking
reduction of maintenance amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.8,000/-
suppressing pendency of Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012, filed
by him with similar relief. Further, it is also an admitted fact that due
to his non-compliance of interim order passed on 18.07.2012 directing
the husband to clear of the arrears of maintenance, the said interim
order was vacated. Accordingly, aggrieved by registration of Crl.MP
No.904 of 2018 before the trial Court, the wife filed Criminal Petition
No.2456 of 2021 seeking to quash the same.
15. So far as the property disputes between the parties is
concerned, this Court is nothing to do with the same. The scope of
revision is very limited and this Court, in a revision, looks only into the
errors, if any, on the face of the record or whether there is any legal
flaw in the findings of the Courts below. Since alternative remedies are
very much available for the parties to decide the ownership of the
properties, now this Court cannot look into the said aspect while
deciding these two matters.
16. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the
husband is not fair enough in approaching the learned trial Court by
filing Criminal MP No.904 of 2018 suppressing the fact of pendency of
Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012 filed by him. Further, he failed
to pay monthly maintenance to his wife as ordered by the Court. It is
his bounden duty to maintain his wife to prevent her from starvation
since she is not gainfully employed. In that view of the matter, without
going deep into the law laid down in the above decisions, relied upon by
both the parties, this Court holds that the prayer of the wife made
through Criminal Petition No.2456 of 2021 to quash Criminal MP
No.904 of 2018 appears to be reasonable and whereas, the prayer of
the petitioner/husband made through Criminal Revision Case No.1147
of 2012 to set aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2011 on
the file of the learned appellant Court is not acceptable. However, in
view of the fact that the husband is a retired person and now eking out
his livelihood with the pension amount and also by doing a petty job,
this Court feels it apt to decrease the compensation amount, as
awarded by the trial Court and modified by the appellate Court.
Accordingly, the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-
from Rs. 10,00,000/-.
17. Except the above modification with regard to quantum of
compensation amount, the Criminal Revision Case No.1147 of 2012, in
all other aspects, stands dismissed. Further, the Criminal Petition
No.2456 of 2021 is allowed quashing the proceedings in Criminal MP
No.904 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2008, on the file of the learned X
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The
miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated :22.11-2023
abb
