Telangana High Court
Bakam Priyadarshini , Sushma And ... vs Bakam Srinivas, Adilabad And Anr on 22 September, 2023
Bench: E.V. Venugopal
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2451 and 935 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Revision Case Nos.2451 of 2016 and 935 of
2016 are filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated
10.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2013 passed by the
learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, "the
appellate Court") in the interests of justice.
2. Since the issue involved in both the Revision cases is one
and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by
way of common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.R.C.No.2451 of
2016 are discussed hereunder.
4. Heard Mr. K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent state.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 was performed on
22.11.2007. At the time of marriage the parents of the bride gave
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as net cash, one tula gold chain, one
Hero Honda Shine Motor Cycle and other house hold articles
worth Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the bride groom. They couple
lived happily for some time and they were blessed with a son
during their wedlock. Later, respondent No.1 started harassing
petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry. Respondent No.1
had illicit intimacy with other women and was a habitual
drunkard, which caused her mental agony. Hence, petitioner
No.1 left his company and started residing at her parents house
along with her son.
6. Petitioner No.1 filed D.V.C.No.1 of 2011 seeking protection
orders, monetary relief, compensation order etc. The Court of
learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), at
Adilabad (for short, "the trial Court") vide order dated 04.05.2012
in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011 directed respondent No.1 to pay
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and
Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 from the date of the
order on or before 5th of every month. Respondent No.1 was
further directed to return an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was
worth of motorcycle to petitioner No.1. Aggrieved thereby,
petitioners preferred an Appeal viz., Crl.A.No.91 of 2013 before
the appellate Court and the learned Judge vide Judgment dated
10.07.2014 modified the order passed by the trial Court by
reducing the cost of the motor cycle from Rs.60,000/- to
Rs.40,000/-. The rest of the finds of the trial Court were held
good. Hence, the revision petitioners sought to set aside the
judgment passed by the appellate Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that at
the time of marriage the parents of petitioner No.1 gave an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as net cash, one tula gold chain, one
Hero Honda Shine Motor Cycle worth Rs.60,000/- and other
house hold articles worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the bride groom. The
trial Court granted maintenance to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 which
was upheld by the lower appellate Court. But the lower appellate
Court reduced the amount to be paid towards motor cycle from
Rs.60,000/- to Rs.40,000/- to petitioners. Therefore, learned
counsel sought to set aside the impugned judgment.
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the
lower appellate Court rightly upheld the order passed by the trial
Court with regard to maintenance amount as well as return of
the amount of Rs.40,000/- towards Motor Cycle to petitioners.
Therefore, submits that the interference from this Court is
unwarranted.
9. A perusal of the record shows that the trial Court, on behalf
of the petitioners examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.
On behalf of respondent No.1, examined RWs.1 to 3 and no
documents were marked. Therefore, after careful consideration of
the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly passed the
order dated 04.05.2012 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2011 granting
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and
Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. However, directed for
return of an amount of Rs.60,000/- which was worth of motor
cycle. On an appeal being preferred, the lower appellate Court
upheld the order passed by the trial Court to the extent of
maintenance amount but modified the order with respect to the
money payable towards motor cycle by reducing the amount from
Rs.60,000/- to Rs.40,000/- payable to petitioners
10. The lower appellate Court upon close scrutiny of oral and
documentary evidence held that the petitioner No.1 failed to file
any receipts/purchase bills for the articles given by her father at
the time of marriage towards dowry. Further, observed that the
purchase of motor cycle in the name of respondent No.1 was
proved. Petitioner No.1 also failed to prove that respondent No.1
was the owner of properties and other agricultural lands by filing
any documentary evidence. Coming to the claim of maintenance
amount, respondent No.1 failed to produce any documentary
evidence to show that petitioner No.1 was earning an amount of
Rs.8,000/- per month by working as ANM.
11. Since, petitioner No.1 was unable to maintain herself and
the child, the lower appellate Court rightly directed respondent
No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner
No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.2 taking into
consideration the earning capacity of respondent No.1. Further,
reduced the amount to be returned with regard to the motor cycle
from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.40,000/- keeping in view that the value of
the vehicle depreciates day by day. Therefore, I do not find any
perversity or irregularity in the impugned judgment and the
Revision stands dismissed.
12. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned
counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, both
the Revisions viz., Criminal Revision Case Nos.2451 and 935 of
2016 stand dismissed, accordingly.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 22.09.2023
ESP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2451 and 935 of 2016
Dated: 22.09.2023
ESP
