Telangana High Court
Prakash Arsid vs The State Of Telangana on 10 June, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.506 and 519 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
Both these matters are arising out of the judgment passed in Criminal
Appeal No.119 of 2022 dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District.
2. Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2023 is filed by the wife - petitioner No.1 aggrieved
by the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2022 dated 10.07.2023
by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar,
Rangareddy District for setting aside the maintenance granted to her in
Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2020 dated 18.07.2022 by the XIV
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar.
3. Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2023 is filed by the husband aggrieved by the
judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2022 dated 10.07.2023 by the
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy
District in partly dismissing the appeal and confirming the maintenance to his
son granted in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2020 dated
18.07.2022 by the XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Hayathnagar.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
4. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court in
D.V.C.No.8 of 2020 as petitioner and respondent.
5. The case of the petitioner - wife was that she was married with
respondent - husband on 29.11.2012 at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and
customs. Out of their wedlock, a son by name Prathik was born on 09.09.2014.
Since the date of marriage, they stayed together in House No.5-3-70/1 at
Bhavani Colony, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad along with the parents of her
husband till November, 2017. Since the date of marriage, the respondent -
husband, his parents, sister and brother-in-law harassed her physically and
mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs and demanded a share
in the properties of her father. They made her to do all the household work and
never provided proper food, clothes and basic amenities. The respondent and
his father used to beat her severely, threatened and abused her in filthy language
and humiliated her. In the month of January, 2013, she got a job in Bharat Bio-
Tech, Hyderabad. But the respondent and her in-laws did not allow her to
attend the job and forced her to resign the job after a week and shattered her
career. When she was pregnant, the respondent, his parents, sister and her
husband harassed her physically and mentally, abused her in filthy language, hit
her demanding additional dowry. They threatened to give divorce, if their
demands were not fulfilled and threw her out of the house. She went to her
parents' house. All the delivery expenses were born by her parents. Even after
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
the birth of a male child on 09.09.2014 and after the cradle ceremony, the
respondent and her in-laws refused to take her back, as her parents failed to
fulfill their demands. When her son was five months old, she took up a job, as
her mother was taking care of her son. On her constant persuasion, the
respondent and his parents took her to their house but within few days of her
joining, the respondent and his family members reiterated the demand of
additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs and share in her father's property and to
resign from her job and intensified their harassment. On 03.04.2015 at 08:30
PM, the respondent picked up quarrel with her, beat indiscriminately and
pressurized to sign on blank papers for taking consent divorce. When she
refused to do so, they snatched away her son and asked her to leave the house.
However, with the help of patrolling police party, she was rescued from their
clutches and reached her parents' house along with her son. In the month of
July, 2015, the respondent resigned from Sierra Cedar Company at Hyderabad
and went to Riyadh for his new job at AEC without informing her. On great
persuasion by her father, the family members of her in-laws and other relatives
attended the first birthday of her son on 09.09.2015. On the next day, she
joined the matrimonial house. She was doing a job by that date. Her in-laws
had put lot of restrictions on her job stating that she had to leave the house only
after completing the household chores and return by 06:30 PM. In case of any
delay of 5 or 10 minutes, they used to abuse her suspecting her. They had kept
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
watch on her movements and used to enquire with the auto driver, whether she
was going to the office or elsewhere. The respondent and his father fixed CC
cameras inside the house in hall and kitchen to monitor her movements. The
said attitude of respondent and her in-laws caused mental pressure and she
could not work up to her potential. Inspite of the said restrictions, they also
forced her to resign the job in the month of March, 2017. As there was no
moral and financial support from the respondent, she had no option except to do
a job to maintain her and her son. The respondent even refused to take care of
her son, while she was doing job. As such, she had to resign to her job. In the
month of November, 2017, at the time of reception of respondent's cousin, her
father-in-law picked up a quarrel with her and respondent and beat them. Due
to which, they shifted to a rented house near the respondent's parents' house in
December, 2017 and stayed together in the rented house till May, 2018. She
was never allowed by respondent's parents to enter into the house after shifting
to rented house and was treated as an alien to that family. In May, 2018, the
respondent got an offer to work in Jakarta of Indonesia on a project work of
WIPRO Company. They shifted to Jakarta and stayed together till the first
week of November, 2019 and led marital life happily. The petitioner No.2 had
his LKG and part of UKG education in ECC, Jakarta of Indonesia till
November, 2019. In the third week of September, 2019, the respondent's
mother suddenly expired. Due to which, they came to Hyderabad and stayed in
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
her in-laws house. They went to Indonesia in the month of October, 2019
informing that they would come back in the month of November, 2019 after
completing exit formalities from Indonesia. After they went to Jakarta, her
father-in-law used to send messages and chat with respondent not to come to his
house along with them and that he would not allow them into his house. In the
first week of November, 2019, they came back to Hyderabad from Jakarta and
stayed in her in-laws house till 02.01.2020. During the said period her sister-in-
law and her husband used to visit every day and poison the respondent's mind
and caused lot of differences between her and the respondent. On their
instigation, the respondent started harassing her to give divorce and to leave the
house along with her son and they demanded to get half share in her father's
property and Rs.20.00 lakhs from her parents if she intended to stay with the
respondent in the matrimonial house. When she refused to oblige their
demands, they insisted her to sign on the divorce papers or to die by committing
suicide. They forced her to leave the matrimonial house along with her son.
5.1. She further submitted that the respondent's father was a habitual drunkard
and return home in drunken condition on every alternate day. Whenever he was
drunk, he used to pick up quarrel with her, humiliate and threaten her to give
divorce to the respondent, so that he would perform second marriage to his son.
On 02.01.2020 at 07:00 PM, her father-in-law came home in drunken condition.
At that time, her sister-in-law and her husband and children were also present in
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
the house. He started throwing furniture on her and on her son, started abusing
her in filthy language and physically assaulted her and kicked petitioner No.2.
The said incident was recorded by her in her mobile phone. The incident turned
in a different form and all of them forcibly sent her and her son out of the house
at about 07:30 or 08:00 PM and demanded her to get half share in the properties
and Rs.20.00 lakhs from her parents. The respondent tried to snatch away her
mobile phone and when she resisted, he slapped and threatened her with dire
consequences and necked her and her son out of the house with wearing
apparel.
5.2. The petitioner further submitted that she had no job or any earnings. She
was not in a position to do any job. She was suffering with mental agony and
lost her career due to the respondent and his family members. The petitioner
No.2 was a six year old boy studying 1st class. She and the petitioner No.2 were
dependent on her parents for their livelihood. The respondent was earning a
salary of Rs.2.00 lakhs per month as software professional. In addition to it, he
was also having a house in Bhavani Nagar where he was getting Rs.50,000/- per
month towards rent. Except his father, he had no one to look after. His father
was a pensioner (retired Government Servant) getting a pension of Rs.40,000/-
per month. The respondent had intentionally sent her and her son out of the
house and escaped from his liability to maintain them inspite of having
sufficient source of income. Since the day they were sent out of the house, he
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
did not spend even a single pie on them. She filed Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 in
D.V.C.No.8 of 2020 seeking a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.80,000/-
per month i.e. Rs.50,000/- to her and Rs.30,000/- to the minor son for food,
shelter, clothing, medical and educational requirements as interim maintenance
until the disposal of the case.
6. The respondent filed counter contending that the petitioner filed an
application under Section 23 read with Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act
(for short "DV" Act) for interim maintenance by gross misrepresentation and
suppression of material facts. He filed divorce petition vide FCOP. No.256 of
2020 on 25.02.2020 much prior to the alleged dowry complaint dated
20.05.2020 filed by the petitioner and registration of the same as FIR No.142 of
2020 dated 20.05.2020 at Women Police Station, Saroornagar, Rachakonda.
The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for maintenance vide M.C.No.162 of 2020 dated
03.12.2020 at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy Family Court. The petitioner filed the
dowry complaint and D.V.C. No.8 of 2020 dated 19.11.2020 as a counter blast
to the divorce petition filed by him. He contended that the petitioner was a
highly educated woman having MS Degree from University of Leeds, UK in
Biotechnology (abroad) and a well-qualified lady and was able to maintain
herself very well. The petitioner No.1 was working
at M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited and was getting a net monthly
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
salary of Rs.45,633/- excluding other deductions viz., PF, etc. The petitioner
intentionally and deliberately concealed the said fact from the Court. Apart
from the said salary, the petitioner No.1 was also working as a free lancer. She
was writing / selling research books and was earning an additional income of
Rs.60,000/-. The total income of the petitioner was more than Rs.1.00 lakh per
month. The petitioner was highly qualified with 7+ years of work experience.
The petitioner's father was a retired Public Prosecutor and was working as a
legal advisor in Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda and had close
acquaintances with police officers. He misused his official position through
police machinery and was harassing the respondent and his family members
since the beginning of the marriage. The respondent also approached the State
Human Rights Commission due to the threats from the father of the petitioner.
6.1. He further stated that he was under immense mental pressure due to
various false cases filed by the petitioner and got low ratings at work in his
performance appraisal and was put in Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
He lost the job at WIPRO Limited due to mental pressure affecting his work.
As it was a private organization, various employees were forced to resign
during pandemic, who had very low performance. He had to take care of the
household expenses amounting to Rs.12,000/- for groceries, Rs.6,000/- for
medical insurance and checkups of his father (senior citizen), Rs.3,000/- for
electricity bill, Rs.15,000/- for cook, Rs.5,000/- for house maid, Rs.6,000/- for
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
gas fuel and miscellaneous expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards lawyer fee, total
monthly expenses amounting to Rs.64,000/-. He was presently working on
temporary basis for a short term project and there was no guarantee to his
private job as he was facing mental pressure due to the various court cases and
was attending 5 days a month to the Courts at Hayathnagar and L.B.Nagar. As
such, his manager was unhappy with his performance and absence and gave
strict warnings of termination of his contract / job and prayed to dismiss the
petition.
7. Both the parties had also filed their affidavits of assets and liabilities.
8. On considering the written arguments filed by both the parties, the
documents and citations filed by them and on hearing both the parties, the
learned XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar
passed orders in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 on 18.07.2022 granting interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 - wife and
Rs.25,000/- per month to her son - petitioner No.2 from the date of filing the
petition i.e. on 17.12.2020.
9. Aggrieved by the said order in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 in D.V.C.No.8 of
2020, the respondent - husband preferred Crl.A.No.119 of 2022 on the file of
the II Additional District Judge - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. The said appeal was partly allowed
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
by the learned Judge on 10.07.2023 setting aside the maintenance awarded to
the petitioner No.1 - wife and confirming the maintenance awarded to the
petitioner No.2 - child from the date of filing the petition till the disposal of the
main case, payable on or before 10th of every month.
10. Aggrieved by the said judgment, both the parties preferred these
revisions.
11. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner - wife and Sri
K.Sai Babu, learned counsel for the respondent - husband.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner - wife submitted that the petitioner -
wife worked in M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Company from 2014-17.
But since, August, 2017, she was unemployed and was not having independent
regular income. She was dependent on her parents for maintenance of her and
her son, for his education and other expenditure. The petitioner had an open
plot of 600 square yards at Amangal, which was her self-acquired property but
no income would generate from the said plot. The said plot was not mentioned
in her affidavit of assets and liabilities due to oversight.
12.1. He further submitted that the Income Tax Returns of the petitioner - wife
for the assessment year 2022-23 was filed by the respondent - husband showing
that she was having a net income of Rs.4,71,070/- The respondent claimed in
his Income Tax Returns of assessment year 2022-23 exemption of HRA of
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
Rs.3,01,032/- by submitting a forged fabricated rental receipt, as if, he paid rent
of Rs.3,01,032/- to the petitioner - wife and that she issued a rental receipt to
him. The information of HRA of Rs.3,01,032/- claimed by the respondent -
husband basing on fabricated rental receipt was informed by the employer of
respondent - husband to Income Tax Department. As such, the said false rental
amount was reflected in the PAN account statement of the petitioner - wife as
her income. The respondent - husband had created a rental receipt in the name
of the petitioner with her PAN Number and submitted the same along with his
Income Tax Return in the assessment year 2022-23 to create false income of
Rs.3,01,032/- to the petitioner - wife to prove that the petitioner was having
income and employed during the assessment year 2022-23. But the documents
filed by the petitioner - wife would clearly establish that the income of
Rs.3,01,032/- shown in her PAN account in the assessment year 2022-23 was
falsely created by the respondent - husband. As such, her actual income for the
assessment year was only Rs.1,70,038/-. He further contended that the
respondent - husband fabricated e-mail documents with a criminal intention to
avoid payment of maintenance to the petitioner - wife. But the documents filed
by the petitioner would show that she was relieved from M/s. Makro Care
Clinical Research Limited on 06.03.2017. She was not working in
M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited in the year 2022. The petitioner
worked only for 25 days in M/s. Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
for the assessment year 2018-19 from 05.07.2017 to 31.07.2017. The
documents filed by the respondent - husband showing the photos of books in
Amazon would not reveal that the petitioner - wife was drawing an additional
amount of Rs.60,000/- per month on sale of books. The petitioner - wife had
received one time Royalty of USD 175 per book for 8 books published in the
year 2016 as per the condition at Serial No.3 of the agreement dated 15.12.2016
and had received one time Royalty of USD 100 for one book published in the
year 2019 and had received one time Royalty of USD 100 per book for 3 books
as per the condition at Serial No.3 of the agreement dated 27.02.2020. The
contention of the respondent - husband that the petitioner - wife was earning an
additional income of Rs.60,000/- per month was false.
12.2. The document filed by the respondent - husband of the Employees
Provident Fund Organization (for short "EPFO"), India would show that some
groups of employees provident fund amount was deposited for the period from
October, 2020 to July, 2021. There was no name of establishment /
organization on the said document and also no name of employee on it. As
such, it could not be said that his wife was working in M/s. Shore InfoTech
during November, 2020 to August, 2021, which was false and not proved.
Likewise, the document filed by the respondent - husband alleging that his wife
was working in M/s. IQVIA, India was also false. No name of the employer /
organization / establishment and employee was mentioned on the document
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
filed by him. The bank account particulars of the customer was confidential
information. No banker could give such information and the same would not be
available in public domain. As such, the documents filed by the respondent -
husband with regard to the alleged bank account numbers of the petitioner were
created by the respondent - husband.
12.3. The petitioner - wife submitted school tuition fee and transport fee
receipts paid by her for Time School, Bandlaguda Jagir and Zee School,
Hayathnagar. Her son was studying in 4th standard and was also attending
sports and dance classes by paying extra charges. The petitioner - wife was not
having regular employment since August, 2017, as the respondent - husband
did not allow her to pursue her career / employment and confined her as house
wife / home maker to take care of her child and in-laws. She was also not
having any other income source for maintenance of her and her child. Due to
long gap in her employment, it would be difficult for her to get an entry in
employment after break of several years. She was also unable to do job due to
mental stress caused by the respondent - husband, who filed divorce petition
vide FCOP No.256 of 2020 and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Shailaja v. Khobbanna1, Manish Jain v. Aakansha Jain 2, Reema
Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan 3 , Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan 4 ,
(2018) 5 SCC 308
2017 Law Suit (SC) 306
2018 Law Suit (SC) 932
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai 5 , Sunitha Kachwaha and Others v. Anil
Kachwaha 6, Anju Garg and Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg 7, Jasbir Kaur
Sehgal v. District Judge, Deharadoon 8 , Vinnyl Paramvir Parmar v.
Paramvir Parmar 9 and Rajnesh v. Neha and Another10.
12.4. He further submitted that the respondent - husband sent six money orders
from 13.02.2021 to 25.09.2021 to a tune of total amount of Rs.16,000/- only to
create evidence during the hearing of interim maintenance petition and to claim
as if he paid maintenance to his son, which was very meager and even not
sufficient for maintenance of his son. He sent the said money orders with a
meager amount only with an intention to humiliate the petitioner - wife and to
satisfy his sadistic attitude. Thus, those money orders were not accepted by the
petitioner - wife and son. The gifts sent by the respondent - husband to his son
were received by the petitioners. The father of the respondent - husband was a
retired Government Servant (Grade I Pharmacist) from DMHO, Kondapur. He
was getting a pension of Rs.60,000/- per month. He was not dependant on the
respondent - husband. No documentary proof for having huge loans were filed
by the respondent. The respondent had not paid a single pie to the petitioners -
2016 Law Suit (SC) 314
2007 Law Suit (SC) 1271
2014 Law Suit (SC) 873
2022 SCC Online SC 1314
1997 (7) SCC 7
2011 (13) SCC 112
(2021) 2 SCC 324
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
wife and son till this Court ordered him to pay 50% of arrears of maintenance to
son and adopted delay tactics to cause suffering to the petitioners - wife and
son. The respondent declared a gross annual income of Rs.20,63,934/- during
the assessment year 2022-23, as per the information obtained by the petitioner -
wife from the Income Tax Department through RTI. The said income of the
respondent - husband was overlooked by the Appellate Court and rejected the
interim maintenance to his wife and prayed to set aside the judgment dated
10.07.2023 in Crl.A.No.119 of 2023 and to allow Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2023 and
to dismiss Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2023.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent - husband on the other hand
contended that the petitioner - wife approached the Court with unclean hands.
She suppressed the fact that she was working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical
Research Company and was drawing a salary of Rs.45,633/- per month and the
said salary was being credited to her bank account. The respondent addressed a
letter under RTI Act to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Income Tax
Department, Officer of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1) dated 13.10.2023
requesting to furnish the salary details of his wife for the financial year 2021-22.
The Income Tax Officer furnished the informed dated 14.11.2023 and gave the
details. As per the said details, the gross total income of the petitioner - wife
for the financial year 2021-22 (Assessment Year : 2022-23) was Rs.5,48,648/-.
The petitioner was highly qualified, earning, doing job and writing books. The
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
respondent lost his job and was not earning salary. The respondent worked as a
principal consultant from March, 2021 to June, 2022. He lost his job due to his
poor performance and pending criminal cases. He was forcefully dependent on
his old aged father, who was a retired Government Employee. The respondent
sent money orders and gifts to his son, but the same were got returned by the
wife. The respondent - husband was not refuting grant of interim maintenance
to his son, but the amount granted and confirmed by the Appellate Court was
unreasonable, as the respondent was not working anywhere and was not earning
due to the pending cases. He was not able to get any job, as the employment
background verification was failing for having 498-A case. The Appellate
Court gave a finding that he was working from March, 2021 to June, 2022. But
at the time of passing the order by the trial court dated 18.07.2022, the
respondent was already terminated from his employment. The trial court did
not consider the document, which was filed to show that he was terminated due
to criminal case under Section 498-A. The respondent - husband filed
91 Cr.P.C. petition before the trial court, when interim maintenance petition was
filed by the wife to prove that the wife was working and drawing handsome
salary at M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited and to direct the HR of the
wife to produce the details of the employment of his wife along with her bank
statement. The copy of the said petition was served on the wife and she filed
counter. But without disposing the said application, the Magistrate passed the
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
orders in the interim maintenance application first. The same was brought to
the notice of the Appellate Judge in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2022, but the
Appellate Court also not considered his request. The petitioner - wife worked
in M/s. Shore InfoTech India Private Limited from 12.10.2020 to 12.03.2021 as
a Senior Research Analyst. She was employed at M/s. IQVIA RDS India
Private Limited, Multi National Company from 16.05.2022 to till date. He
obtained the EPFO details which would show that her salary was getting
credited in the form of PF from 17.08.2022 to January, 2024. The petitioner -
wife was having a Master's Degree in MS from University of Leeds, UK. She
was writing books and the cost of each book was about Rs.10,000/-. The
respondent - husband worked as a principal consultant from 08.03.2021 to
10.08.2022. Thereafter, he was forced to resign and his employer relieved him.
The respondent - husband withdrew the divorce FCOP No.256 of 2020 filed by
him with a fond hope of reunion and filed FCOP.No.1916 of 2023 under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The
petitioner filed the D.V.C. in the year 2020 stating that she was not earning,
though she was earning in the year 2021. The person, who approaches the
Court with unclean hands was not entitled to any relief or interim orders.
13.1. He further contended that as per the interim orders in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
Crl.R.C.No.591 of 2023 and in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Crl.R.C.No.592 of 2023, he
deposited an amount of Rs.65,000/- by way of banker's cheque in the name of
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
his son, which was acknowledged by his wife and he deposited an amount of
Rs.2,75,000/- on 30.10.2023 and a receipt was issued by the petitioner - wife
and the same were filed through USR No.11844 of 2024 dated 06.02.2024 in
the Registry with a memo and prayed to adjust the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- paid
by him towards interim maintenance to his son and prayed to set aside the
judgment of the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2022 dated
10.07.2023.
14. As seen from the record, these revision petitions are filed against the
judgment in Crl.A.No.119 of 2022 passed by the Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District against the orders
in Crl.M.P.No.772 of 2022 in D.V.C.No.8 of 2020, which was filed for grant of
interim maintenance during the pendency of the D.V.C. Both the parties have
also filed their affidavits of assets and liabilities. As per the affidavits filed by
both the parties with regard to their educational qualifications, income, assets
and liabilities, the petitioner - wife did her B.Tech (Biotechnology). She did
her MS from University of Leeds, UK and worked in M/s. Makro Care Clinical
Research Limited from 15.12.2014 to 06.03.2017 as Scientific Associate - non-
clinical / toxicology with employee ID.No.21214397. She stated that she was
not working at the time of filing the D.V.C. and that she was harassed
physically and mentally by the respondent and his family members. They did
not allow her to do the job and forced her to resign from the job. The
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
respondent intentionally sent her and her son out of the house and escaped from
his liability to maintain them. She was in need of Rs.50,000/- per month
towards her maintenance and Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance of
her son - petitioner No.2. She further stated that the respondent - husband was
a qualified professional of B.Tech., MS (USA) and was working as a Principal
Consultant in Cloud Operations, Oracle, Madhapur, Hyderabad and was
drawing a salary of Rs.2.00 lakhs per month. He was also having a G+3
building at H.No.5-3-70/1, Bhavani Nagar, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, a 2
BHK flat - Flat No.410, 4th floor, Tower No.8, Provident Kenworth, Aramgarh
Cross Roads, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad, a 3 BHK flat - Flat No.406, 4th
floor, Tower No.15, Provident Kenworth, Aramgarh Cross Roads, Rajendra
Nagar, Hyderabad and also plot No.92 to an extent of 236.54 square yards in
Survey No.29/A/A and 29/A/AA, Fortune Residency, Firozguda Village,
Ibrahimpatnam as per registered sale deed document No.17730 of 2016 of SRO,
Ibrahimpatnam and was getting rents of Rs.60,000/- per month.
15. The respondent - husband on the other hand admitted that he was
working as an Analyst in M/s. Oracle Private Limited and declared his monthly
income as Rs.89,052/- and stated that he was incurring an expenditure of
Rs.64,000/- per month. He was having loans of Rs.21.00 lakhs and was paying
EMIs of Rs.15,362/- per month and stated that his father was dependant on him.
He stated that he was having a plot of 230 square yards at Adibatla, which was
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
his self-acquired property and not stated about any other properties. He further
stated that the petitioner - wife was working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical
Research Limited and was earning Rs.45,533/- per month and was also earning
an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the sale of her books online at Amazon and at
other international sites and also receiving half of rental income from her
parents' property.
16. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial
court observing that the petitioner No.1 even though was having good
educational qualification, due to mental agony as she was not able to do her job
and both the parties failed to file their bank statements of their salary accounts
and no authentic proof was filed by the respondent - husband to show the salary
proof of the petitioner and the petitioner also failed to file the authentic proof to
show the salary of respondent - husband and considering that the respondent
being the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was bound to
maintain them, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to petitioner No.1
and Rs.25,000/- to petitioner No.2 during the pendency of the D.V.C.
17. The learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District while disposing the appeal in Crl.A.No.119 of
2022, though observed that the material brought on record would clearly show
that the wife was highly educated but the mere qualification ipso facto would
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
not conclude that she was in a position to maintain herself and the capacity of
earning and the actual earning were different factors. But, however, considering
that the material placed by the respondent would show that the petitioner was
earning in the year 2021, and considering the contention of the respondent that
he was not working and the petitioner - wife failed to bring on record with
regard to the exact income of the respondent - husband, set aside the
maintenance awarded to the petitioner No.1- wife and confirmed the
maintenance awarded to the child - petitioner No.2.
18. But as seen from the assets and liabilities affidavits filed by the
respondent, he admitted that he was working as an Analyst in M/s. Oracle
Private Limited and was earning Rs.89,052/- per month. In his written
arguments, he also admitted his Income Tax Returns (for short "ITR") for the
financial year 2020-21 and 2021-22 as undisputed documents. The respondent
- husband declared his annual gross income as Rs.20,63,934/- during the
financial year 2021-22 in his Income Tax Returns. His declaration of income in
his ITR for the Financial Year 2021-22 would show that his monthly salary was
more than Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The petitioner - wife contended that he
was earning Rs.2.00 lakhs per month as salary and the ITR filed by him, which
was undisputed by the respondent also would show that he was earning more
than Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The respondent - husband had not stated in his
affidavit of assets and liabilities about the residential G+3 building bearing
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
H.No.5-3-70/1 and that he purchased flat No.410, 4th floor, Tower No.8,
Provident Kenworth Apartment situated in Rajendra Nagar. The petitioner -
wife submitted two photographs of the G+3 floor building situated in Bhavani
Colony, Rajendra Nagar and stated that the respondent - husband along with his
father was residing in the second floor of the said building. The ground floor,
first floor and third floor consisting of ten portions were leased to tenants and
that he was getting an amount of Rs.80,000/- per month towards rents. She also
contended that the respondent - husband let out the 2-Bedroom Flat No.410 in
Provident Kenworth Apartment, Rajendra Nagar on lease and was getting an
income of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rent. She also filed the documents,
agreements of sale, registered sale deeds in proof of the same. The contention
of the respondent - husband was that the G+3 building was in the name of his
mother Saroja. She died on 17.09.2009 and the care taker of the said property
was her husband Umakanth Rao Arsid and the respondent was no way
concerned with the said property and he was not getting any rents. But it was
an undisputed fact that after the death of his mother, the respondent and his
father were both entitled for a share in the said property and that the respondent
- husband was also residing in the said property and was enjoying the rents.
19. The written arguments filed by the respondent would disclose that he
entered into an agreement of sale with regard to 2-Bedroom flat No.410, 4th
floor, Tower No.8 in Provident Kenworth Apartment, Aramgarh Cross Roads,
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
Rajendra Nagar, but as he was facing financial crisis, his father purchased the
said flat and subsequently sold it to a third party.
20. The statement of the respondent that the agreement of sale was entered by
him but that his father purchased the same and sold it to a third party would give
rise to a suspicion that only to avoid payment of maintenance to the petitioners,
the said flat was purchased in the name of his father.
21. The petitioner filed two photographs showing that her husband purchased
a new car in the first week of February, 2023. The respondent - husband in his
written arguments contended that the said car was purchased by his father by
obtaining a loan of Rs.7.00 lakhs from SBI and was paying an EMI of
Rs.20,200/- every month. Even if the said contentions of the respondent are
considered as true, his father who was a retired Government Employee and a
pensioner was having properties in his name and was also having ability to
purchase the car of a value of more than Rs.7.00 lakhs by taking loan and was
having the financial capacity to pay the EMI of Rs.20,200/- every month. As
such, he cannot be considered as a dependant on the respondent.
22. Even if the said properties are not considered, the gross annual income
declared by the respondent in his ITR itself would disclose as Rs.20,63,934/- for
the financial year 2021-22, i.e. more than Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
23. The contention of the respondent - husband was that the petitioner was
working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited by the date of filing the
petition and was drawing a salary of Rs.45,633/- per month and suppressed the
said information and approached the Court with unclean hands. The Appellate
Court also considered that the material placed by the respondent would clearly
show that she was earning in the year 2021 but failed to state what was the
material placed by the respondent to come to the said conclusion. The
respondent - husband filed certain documents along with I.A.No.1 of 2024 in
Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2023 to show that the said documents would establish that
the petitioner - wife was working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research
Limited. The said document was an e-mail dated 07.06.2022, which was sent
by one Jitender Dasari to the respondent informing him that the petitioner Preeti
Kartan was working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited as on
07.06.2022. But the said document was contended by the petitioner - wife as a
fabricated document. Learned counsel for the petitioner - wife contended that
on receiving the copy of the said e-mail from the respondent - husband, the
petitioner - wife addressed an e-mail to the organization on 27.02.2023
informing about the wrong information furnished in e-mail dated 07.06.2022 at
06:15 PM by Jitender Dasari and on that the General Manager, Smt.Radhika
Agli of M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited enclosed the
communication chain of emails between Jitender Dasari of M/s. Makro Care
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
and that of the respondent - husband, which would show that there were four
emails. In the chain of e-mails between Jitender Dasari and Prakash Arsid
(respondent - husband), it would not reflect the e-mail dated 07.06.2022 at
06:15 PM and the chain of e-mails would not disclose that the petitioner - wife
was working in M/s. Makro Care Clinical Research Limited in Hyderabad.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the e-mail dated
07.06.2022 filed by the respondent - husband was a fabricated document
created by him by editing the first email dated 07.06.2022 at 06:12 PM in the
chain of mails with a criminal intention to avoid payment of maintenance, as
the starting words used in those two e-mails were same.
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner - wife also contended that the
documents filed by the respondent with regard to the EPFO of M/s. Shore
InfoTech as well as M/s. IQVIA, India were single page documents without any
previous page or next pages. Those documents would only disclose some
groups of employees' PF amounts deposited in Provident Fund Organization for
the periods from October, 2020 to July, 2021 and for the period from August,
2022 to December, 2023. They could not be believed as there was no name of
the employer / organization / establishment and also no name of employee on it.
Basing on the said documents, it could not be said that the petitioner - wife was
working in the said organizations.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
26. These aspects are the subject matter of trial. The present revision cases
are filed only on an application for interim maintenance during the pendency of
the D.V.C. This Court need not go into all these details at present and basing on
the admitted facts can decide the aspects. As the petitioner - wife was not
admitting these documents, they cannot be considered at this stage to believe
that the petitioner - wife was working and was having an independent source of
income.
27. With regard to the allegation of the respondent - husband that the
petitioner - wife was earning Rs.60,000/- per month from the sale of books in
Amazon, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - wife was that
the petitioner - wife had received only one time Royalty for the books
published and there was no regular source of income on the sale of books. No
contrary evidence was produced by the respondent - husband. As such, the said
contention of the respondent - husband that the petitioner - wife was earning
Rs.60,000/- per month on the sale of books cannot be believed.
28. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner was that the
petitioner - wife was not having regular employment since August, 2017, as she
was not allowed to pursue her career / employment and was confined to the
house. Due to the long gap in her employment, it was difficult for her to get an
entry in employment after break of several years and the petitioner No.2 - son
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
was a school going boy and as he was studying and the petitioner - wife was
incurring some amounts towards his extra-curricular activities for attending
sports and dance classes by paying extra charges. The contention of the learned
counsel for the respondent - husband was that the respondent was not denying
his liability to pay maintenance towards his son - the petitioner No.2, but he
was only contending that the amount of maintenance awarded was on higher
side.
29. But, this Court does not consider that the amount of Rs.25,000/- per
month awarded to petitioner No.2 son was on higher side, as he is a growing
boy and going to higher classes and the amounts to be spent on his school,
tuition fees and extra-curricular activities would be increasing day by day.
30. The Appellate Court denying interim maintenance to the petitioner - wife
by setting aside the orders of the trial court is considered erroneous, as the
respondent - husband failed to prove by any admissible evidence that the
petitioner No.1 - wife was working. Even if the wife is considered to be having
some income, as per the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Sunitha Kachwaha and others v. Anil Kachwaha (cited supra),
merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to
reject her claim for maintenance.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
31. Similarly in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that it was not sufficient to rule out the application of maintenance of
wife even if she was earning and held that earning wife was also entitled for
maintenance to live to the status of her husband.
32. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that if the husband would not disclose the exact amount of income,
an adverse inference can be drawn by the Court. The obligation of the husband
to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal. Plea of the husband not to
have means to pay or not having a job or business were bald excuses not
acceptable in law, if husband was healthy and able bodied.
33. In Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan (cited supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that the Courts must have due regard to the standard of living
of the husband, as well as the spiraling inflation rates and high cost of living.
The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso
facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he was able
bodied and had educational qualifications.
34. In Manish Jain v. Aakansha Jain (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the financial position of the parents of the wife would not be material
while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim
maintenance is conditional on the circumstances that the wife who makes a
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
claim has no independent income sufficient for her support. It is no answer to
claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The
Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of
the spouse to pay maintenance for her support.
35. In Shailaja v. Khobbanna (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be sufficient
ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The Court has
to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to
maintain herself in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home.
36. In Anju Garg & Another v. Deepak Kumar Garg (cited supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was not permissible for the respondent -
husband to contend that he had no source of income, as his business was closed,
the respondent - husband being an able bodied person was obliged to earn by
legitimate means and maintain his wife and minor child. Having regard to the
evidence of the appellant - wife before the Family Court and having regard to
the other evidence on record, the Court had no hesitation in holding that though
the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able bodied, had failed
and neglected to maintain the appellants as such decided it proper to grant
maintenance allowance to the appellant wife and son.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
37. In Rajnesh v. Neha and Another (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that if the wife was earning, it could not operate as a bar from being
awarded maintenance by the husband.
38. Thus the ratio of all these cases would show that even if the wife was
earning, it would not bar from awarding maintenance to her. As such, this
Court considers that the Appellate Court committed illegality in setting aside
the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner No.1 - wife.
39. Learned counsel for the respondent - husband contended that the
petitioner - wife also filed M.C.No.162 of 2022 and in the said M.C. also, she
filed Crl.M.P.No.362 of 2021, wherein the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy
District vide order dated 10.01.2024 awarded interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 - wife from the date of petition till
the disposal of M.C. observing that the Appellate Court in D.V.C. had rejected
the grant of interim maintenance to her.
40. Even taking into consideration the above fact of awarding interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 - wife in
Crl.M.P.No.362 of 2021 in M.C.No.162 of 2022, as the amount of maintenance
awarded to the petitioner No.1 - wife was only Rs.20,000/- per month and to
the petitioner No.2 was only Rs.25,000/- per month, which would come to
Rs.45,000/- per month and as the respondent - husband was earning more than
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
Rs.1,50,000/- per month, as per the Income Tax Returns filed by him, it is
considered fit to direct the respondent - husband to pay an amount of
Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the petitioner No.1 -
wife in addition to the amount awarded to her in Crl.M.P.No.362 of 2021 in
M.C.No.162 of 2022.
41. In the result, the Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2023 filed by the petitioner No.1 -
wife is allowed setting aside the judgment of the Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Rangareddy District in Crl.A.No.119
of 2022 and interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner No.1 - wife is
granted in addition to the amount awarded to her in Crl.M.P.No.362 of 2021 in
M.C.No.162 of 2022 and Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2023 filed by the respondent -
husband is dismissed confirming the amount of interim maintenance awarded
to the petitioner No.2 - son @ Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of petition.
The respondent - husband is directed to pay the arrears from the date of petition
within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and should continue to pay the interim maintenance as ordered by this
Court on or before 10th of every month till the disposal of the D.V.C.No.8 of
2020.
Dr.GRR, J
crlrc_506 & 519_2023
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these revision cases, if
any shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 10th June, 2024
Nsk.
