Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Soujanya vs The State Of Telangana on 20 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9452 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to
set aside the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2022 in M.C.No.8 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Principal Family Court, Secunderabad and
consequently, to direct respondent No.2 to pay
Rs.2,95,000/- per month to the petitioners towards interim
maintenance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed
M.C.No.8 of 2022 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C against
respondent No.2 stating that the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on
16.11.2000. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with
two children (i.e., one girl and one boy) aged about 19 years
and 12 years respectively. After the marriage, respondent
No.2 changed his attitude from bad to worse and due to
some of the incidents occurred in the marital life with
SKS,J
respondent No.2 while staying with him and unethical
abuse of her daughter, she left her marital house and went
to her father's house to have a safe and secured
environment for her kids. Later, petitioner No.1 lodged
complaint before Police against respondent No.2-husband
on 30.06.2021 and the same was registered as Crime
No.565 of 2021. Subsequently, she lodged another
complaint before Police against her father-in-law and the
same was registered as Crime No.201 of 2021. From June,
2021, respondent No.2 is not maintaining her and her
children. He being the husband and father of minor
daughter and son is ignoring his liability to maintain them.
During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioners
filed Crl.M.P.No.85 of 2022 under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C.
for grant of maintenance to them Rs.2,95,000/- per month
till the disposal of the main petition and the same was
allowed in part directing respondent No.2 to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to petitioner No.1 and
Rs.20,000/- to petitioner No.3 from the date of order. The
claim against petitioner No.2 is dismissed. Hence, the
present Criminal Petition.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State and Sri Dama N. Sai Chand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
respondent No.2 is working in Central Government
O.N.G.C., and is getting salary of Rs.3,00,000/- per month
and Rs.3,60,000/- from rental and other side businesses.
That apart, he owns moveable and immovable properties in
and around Hyderabad worth about crores. He further
submitted that respondent No.2 is well settled and it is his
bounden duty to take care and welfare of the petitioners
being husband and father by providing basic necessities.
Without considering the same, the trial Court granted very
meager amount to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed the
maintenance against petitioner No.2 without assigned any
reason, as such, prayed to set aside the petition and grant
maintenance to petitioner No.2 also.
SKS,J
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata and Ors 1,
wherein in paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it is held as follows:
"3. In view of the finding record and
the observations made by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court, the only question
that arises for consideration is whether the
order calls for interference. A similar
question came up for consideration by this
Court in the case of Noor Sabha Khatoon vs.
Mohd. Quasim 1997 SCC (Crl) 924:
MANU/SC/0827/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 3280
relating to the claim of a Muslim divorced
woman for maintenance from her husband
for herself and her minor children. This
Court while accepting the position that
Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure
does not fix liability of parents to maintain
children beyond attainment of majority, read
the said provision and Section 3(1)(b) of the
Muslim Womwn (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act together and held that under the
latter statutory provision liability of providing
maintenance extends beyond attainment of
majority of a dependent girl.
4. Applying the principle to the facts
and circumstances of the case in hand, it is
manifest that the right of a minor girl for
maintenance from parents after attaining
majority till her marriage is recognized in
Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act. Therefore, no exception
can be taken to the judgment/order passed
by the learned Single Judge for maintaining
the order passed by the Family Court which
is based on a combined reading of Section
125, Code of Criminal Procedure and Section
20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
MANU/SC/1416/2002
SKS,J
Maintenance Act. For the reasons
aforestated we are of the view that on facts
and in the circumstances of the case no
interference with the impugned judgment
order of the High Court is called for."
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 submitted that petitioner No.2 attained majority prior
to filing of the present petition. Coming to petitioner No.1
she became insecure and distant from respondent No.2 and
she taken away the children from their own biological
father with an intention to torture him and filed false cases
under POSCO Act, 2012. She also filed D.V.C.No.49 of
2022, Crime No.565 of 2021 and Crime No.201 of 2021
with false and baseless allegations. He further submitted
that respondent No.2 is sending monthly expenses of
Rs.20,000/- towards medical and other expenses in
addition to miscellaneous expenditure. The petitioners are
claiming maintenance exorbitantly. Petitioner No.1 is an
MBA graduate, she owns 2 BHK flat in Amberpet and she is
enjoying rental income amount to Rs.10,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per month and apart from that she is getting
rental income from another 1 BHK flat at Kukatpally. As
such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
SKS,J
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both
the learned counsel and having gone through the material
available on record, the maintenance awarded by the trial
Court to petitioner Nos.1 and 3 is sufficient in view of the
affidavit filed by respondent No.2, as such, there is no need
to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Further, the
claim against petitioner No.2 was dismissed by the trial
Court and no reasons were mentioned to that effect. As it
is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above
judgment, the unmarried daughter, who attained the
majority, may not be entitled for maintenance from her
parents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and such right is
recognized under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 and on combined reading of the
above two provisions, the Family Court is entitled to grant
maintenance to an unmarried daughter even after attaining
majority, provided she is unable to maintain herself.
8. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed
of directing petitioner No.2 to file an appropriate application
SKS,J
under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, for claiming maintenance.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.03.2024
SAI
