Telangana High Court
Gaddamidi Kishore Goud vs Smt. Gaddamidi Tejaswini on 25 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2038 OF 2025
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking assailing the order
dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.660 of 2024 in M.C
No.136 of 2023 (old M.C No.28 of 2023) by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Additional Family
Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (for short "the
trial Court"), wherein the petition filed by the respondent Nos.1
and 2 was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay
Rs.10,000/- per month, in aggregate, to the petitioners towards
their interim maintenance from the date of the order.
2. Heard Sri C.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for
petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the State-respondent No.3 and Sri Ch.Srikanth, learned counsel
for unofficial respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the
petitioner has got no source of income. The petitioner and
respondent No.1 lived happily together, but after the death of
father of the petitioner, he had taken the responsibility of his 66
years old mother, who is suffering from old age aliments,
therefore, disputes have been arose between petitioner and
respondent No.1 and thereafter, respondent No.1 started living
separately with her own volition. A Maintenance Case has been
filed by the unofficial respondent, but the petitioner has no
sufficient source of income and hence seeks to allow this criminal
petition by setting aside the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by
the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents would submit that the trial Court while granting
maintenance on 29.11.2024, awarded a meager amount of
Rs.10,000/- to the respondents as against the claim of
Rs.25,000/-. It is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the
respondent No.1 and her child and there has been a substantial
escalation in the cost of living from the date of the order up to the
present time and seeks interference of this Court to increase the
maintenance amount.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondents, the subject matter of the impugned order is arising
out of the M.C.No.136 of 2023, which is yet to be concluded after
conducting thorough trial by giving considerable time. In these
circumstances, this Court does not see any merits to interfere
into the order passed by the learned trial Court.
6. However as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the maintenance
amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, the
petitioner is directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month on or before
10th day of each calendar month to the account of respondent
No.1. So far as arrears are concerned, as per the impugned
order, the petitioner shall deposit the said arrears at the rate
specified within a period of one year from the date of this order.
The trial Court is directed to conduct the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible by following the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case of in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and
another 1.
7. With the above direction, this criminal petition is disposed
of. It is made clear that this order will not preclude the petitioner
and unofficial respondents to agitate their rights before the
appropriate forum.
(2021) 2 SCC 324
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,
shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
Date: 25.06.2025
pld
