Telangana High Court
Burugu Uma Rani And 2 Others, vs Burugu Jagadeeswar And Another, on 18 November, 2024
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.88 OF 2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 Cr.P.C against the Judgment in M.C.No.472 of 2008, dated
30.11.2010 passed by the learned Family Judge Court, at
L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Sri.C.Raghu, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners, Sri K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the respondent No.2-State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 was performed on
30.04.1998 at P.N.M.High School Ground, behind Shivalayam,
Kukapally. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with
respondent Nos.2 and 3. At the time of marriage, the parents of
petitioner No.1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- dowry, one Chethak Scooter,
20 tulas of gold articles and house hold articles. Prior to
marriage, engagement ceremony was held by the father of the
petitioner No.1 by incurring Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter,
respondent started to harass the petitioner No.1 while demanding
additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. During her stay with
respondent No.1, he was subjecting her to cruel by beating.
Further, respondent No.1 had taken all gold ornaments from
petitioner No.1 and mis-appropriated the funds. He was not
permitting her to go to her parents over telephone. He was not
providing medical assistance. Due to unbearable conduct, the
petitioner No.1 filed criminal complaint for dowry harassment at
Kukatpally Police Station vide Crime No.91 of 2007, registered for
the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Unable to bear such
harassment, petitioner No.1 left the society of her husband and
started residing with her parents. The petitioner No.1 is having
no means to maintain herself and her children/petitioner Nos.2
and 3.
4. Respondent No.2 has filed his counter denying the
allegations made by petitioner No.1 regarding harassment for
additional dowry and that the parents of petitioner No.1 paid
additional dowry and that he is not satisfied with the same and
continued to harass her and ill-treated her. Respondent No.1
also stated that petitioner No.1 is in the habit of leaving the
house of respondent No.1 frequently without any intimation to
him and she used to come to her parents house and she was
persuaded by the community elders many times and yet she used
to leave his house frequently. Respondent No.2 has not neglected
the petitioners and petitioner No.1 left his company on her own
will and as such she is not entitled for maintenance.
5. The learned Magistrate after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence and facts before it has partly allowed the
M.C. awarding a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to petitioner Nos.2
and 3 from the date of that petition. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
entitled to maintain till they attains the age of majority.
Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed the present criminal
revision case for enhancement of maintenance.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
learned Magistrate has granted a meagre amount as monthly
maintenance, as the cost of living standards of the people has
been escalated in today's context. Hence seeks for enhancement
of monthly maintenance.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State submitted that the petitioners without filing
appropriate application for enhancement of maintenance before
the Court below, filing revision case before this Court is
misconceived and interference of this Court at this stage is
unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the criminal revision case.
8. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below at
this stage, granting the liberty to the petitioner to approach the
appropriate Court below and make necessary application under
Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance.
9. Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 18.11.2024
mmr
