Poluri Vamsi Krishna vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4209 Tel

Telangana High Court

Poluri Vamsi Krishna vs Union Of India on 24 June, 2025

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                WRIT PETITION No.17524 OF 2025

ORDER:

The petitioner is aggrieved by action of respondent No.3 in

passing the impugned proceedings PC-15731157A/MDC/PVK

dated 11.02.2025 granting maintenance to respondent No.7 and

a consequential prayer was sought to set aside the same.

2. The petitioner first marriage was performed on

01.10.2017 with Smt.Uma Maheshwari. Out of wedlock,

petitioner is blessed with a baby girl namely Shivasahaja.

Thereafter, petitioner's wife died in the month of September,

2021 and respondent No.7 joined petitioner's company along

with his daughter. Subsequently, some disputes arose between

petitioner and respondent No.7 and later respondent No.7 left

the petitioner in the month of October, 2022. Thereafter,

respondent No.7 sent two legal notices to the petitioner and

accordingly filed a complaint vide FIR No.286/2023 dated

15.05.2023 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the file of Bachupally Police

Station and the Police filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.286/2023.

::2::

3. The first legal notice was sent by respondent No.7 on

13.06.2023 seeking maintenance and petitioner replied to the

said notice and filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under

Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act vide F.C.O.P.No.592 of 2023 on

the file of Family Court, Secunderabad and the same is pending

for adjudication. It is submitted that respondent No.7 has

approached respondent Nos.3 and 4 seeking maintenance and

respondent No.5 issued show cause notice on 13.03.2024 and

petitioner submitted explanation on 22.04.2024. It is further

submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 6 without considering the

explanation of the petitioner has passed the impugned order

vide Proceeding PC-15731157A/MDC/PVK dated 11.02.2025.

Respondent No.6 directed respondent No.3 to deduct 15% per

month from the Pay and Allowance commencing from the date of

initial application for maintenance i.e., from 11.07.2023 to

10.07.2026. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 6

failed to issue any notice to the petitioner before passing the

impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit respondent No.3 does not have jurisdiction as per

Section 90(i) of Army Act, 1950.

::3::

"(i) any sum required by the order of Central Government or any prescribed officer to be paid for the maintenance of his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child or towards the cost of any relief given by the said Government to the said wife or child"

And Rule 193 of the Army Rules 1954:

193: Prescribed Officer under Sections 90(i) and 91(i). The prescribed officer for the purposes of clause (i) of Section 90 and clause (i) of Section 91 shall be the Chief of the Army Staff or the officer commanding the Army."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in

view of Section 90(i) of the Army Act, 1950 and Rule 193 of the

Army Rules, 1954, the impugned order passed is without

jurisdiction. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is

filed.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, this

Court was inclined to issue notice to official respondents and

respondent No.7, however, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that this Court in similar circumstances has passed ::4::

interim order in W.P.No.28263 of 2022 dated 06.07.2022 and

pray this Court to pass similar order.

6. In the impugned order dated 11.02.2025, respondent

No.3 has granted maintenance to respondent No.7 as per GOC-

in-C HQ Northern Command vide Lr.No.22018/11057/HR dated

11.02.2025. In the impugned order, it was observed that in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 91(i) of the Army

Act, 1950 r/w Army Rules, General Officer Commanding-in-

Chief, Northern Command has accorded sanction of 15% per

month from pay and allowances of Poluri Vamsi Krishna (i.e.,

the petitioner herein) to his wife (i.e., respondent No.7 herein) as

maintenance for a period of three (3) years with effect from

11.07.2023 to 10.07.2026. The copy of the same has also been

marked to respondent No.7 and respondent No.7 was advised to

file a civil suit for grant of permanent maintenance allowance

and it was clarified that failure to file civil suit may lead to

discontinuance of maintenance allowance.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his

case would rely on certain judgments viz., O.A.No.1229 of 2017 ::5::

on the file of Armed Forces Tribunal and W.P.No.5866 of 2019

on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

8. Per contra, Mr.G.Venkateswarlu, learned Central

Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that in similar

circumstances, the High Court of Delhi in Sergeant Ajit Kumar

Shukla v. Union of India and others 1 has dismissed the writ

petition observing that the remedy lies before Armed Forces

Tribunal (AFT) and not under Article 226 of Constitution of

India. Learned standing counsel would refer to the following

paragraphs:

"19. Once the challenge to AFO No.03/2013 fails, the challenge if any on the merits of the impugned order dated 5th August, 2019, would lie before the AFT and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. We may mention that the petitioner had in fact approached the Principal Bench of the AFT but subsequently withdrew the OA filed before the AFT. All that we can say is that the challenge before this Court is totally misconceived and liable to be rejected immediately.

2020 SCC OnLine Del 1590 ::6::

21. While correcting this order, we also find the question to be no longer res integra. As far back as in Major Jaideep Singh Sandhu Vs. Union of India 1995 SCC OnLine Del 357, the Division Bench of this Court, concerned with a challenge to the order of maintenance against the petitioner therein on the ground of Note 22 of the Military Manual (relied upon also by AFT Chandigarh) to the effect that the power under Section 90(i) of the Army Act cannot be exercised unless the wife and son obtains a decree of maintenance, held (a) that Section 90(i) of the Army Act is independent of Section 28, merely conferring immunity from attachment orders of Civil or Revenue Court; (b) that the Legislature meant that the Central Government should have power of deduction even in cases where the wife and children have not been able to approach a Court; (c) that there was no justification for the restrictions imposed by Note 22 of the Military Manual on the powers under Section 90(i); (d) that in Section 90(i), there is no such pre-condition of obtaining a decree/order of the Civil Court; (e) that this is clearly because of the legislative policy behind Section 90;

(f) that the maintenance of wife and children of an Army Officer cannot be postponed till determination by the Court; (g) that to give any other interpretation would lead to untold hardship to the wife and children, if they are deserted by the officer without ::7::

sufficient cause; (h) that the Courts must interpret these beneficent provisions with a view to carry out the purposes of Section 90(i); (i) that the Notes are not part of the statute or the Rules and cannot be followed if are in conflict with the statute or the statutory rule; and, (j) that Section 90 is in addition to resorting to a Civil Court.

22. We also find the question to have again arisen in Suneel Vs. Union of India AIR 2004 Delhi 95, again in the context of Army Act. Again, it was held that in view of the statutory provisions, the Authorities under the Army Act could not be debarred from making an order of maintenance in favour of wife and children of an Army personnel.

23. As far as Mahendra Singh Rathore supra cited by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said order merely issues notice of the petition impugning the order of deduction from the salary of the petitioner therein under Section 92(i) of the Air Force Act read with Rule 162 of the Air Force Rules and till the next date of hearing stays the operation and effect of the said order. The said order, not recording any reasons and merely admitting the petition and granting the interim stay, only recording the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner, is on a prima facie view of the matter and does not constitute a precedent.

::8::

24. There is no merit in the petition.

25. Dismissed."

9. In view of the observations made by learned counsel on

either side, this Court is of the considered view that since

respondent No.7 was granted with maintenance, it is necessary

to issue notice to respondent No.7 and this Court was also

inclined to permit the petitioner to take out personal notice on

respondent No.7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that this Court in similar circumstances, in

W.P.No.28263 of 2022 dated 06.07.2022 has granted interim

order and prayed this Court to pass similar order. This Court is

not inclined to pass orders without hearing respondent No.7 and

any order passed without hearing respondent No.7 would affect

rights of respondent No.7.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh and

others 2 confronted with a conflict between the two foundational

principles of natural justice i.e., rule against bias (nemo judex in

causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem).

2025 SCC OnLine SC 179 ::9::

In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

the principle of audi alteram partem lies at the very heart of

procedural fairness, ensuring that no one is condemned or

adversely affected, without being given an opportunity to

present their case. The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

"The principle of audi alteram partem is the cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. This principle transforms justice from a mere technical formality into a humane pursuit. It safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and is needed more so in cases of unequal power dynamics."

11. In view of the aforesaid observations and in view of the

catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to

audi alteram partem, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition shall stand closed. No costs.

_____________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR., J 24.06.2025 mrm