Telangana High Court
Mannem Venkat Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 25 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.300 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed in M.C. No. 138 of
2019 on the file of learned Judge, Additional Family Court,
Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. By the impugned order, the
petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking monthly interim
maintenance, was allowed by the trial Court.
2. Heard Sri.Gundaram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State as well as
Ms. G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner the trial Court has
erroneously passed the impugned order by granting monthly
interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 without
ascertaining the income sources of the petitioner. He further
submitted that the petitioner, who is a RMP doctor, is not in a
position to practice as he is suffering from old age ailments and
eking out his livelihood on the mercy of the near and dear at his
village. He also submitted that respondent No.2 is also earning
money by doing private works. Hence, he prayed the Court to
allow the revision case by setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1 opposed the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner stating that the trial Court has rightly passed
the impugned order after appreciating the evidence on record
and prayed the Court to dismiss the revision case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that though the trial Court has granted only
Rs.10,000/- towards monthly interim maintenance, the
petitioner filed the present case with a mala fide intention to
avoid the payment of the interim maintenance to respondent
No.2. She further submitted that the petitioner is practicing RMP
doctor and having three own houses with good earnings. She
also filed statements of the petitioner's cross examination and
his assets and liabilities to prove her case. In support of her
submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of
the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another 1and prayed
the Court to dismiss the revision petition.
(2021) 2 SCC 324
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the
parties, this Court has perused the material evidence available
on record. It is apparent that the petitioner is practicing as RMP
doctor by treating the patients. It is noteworthy that the
petitioner receiving monthly rents from his three houses which
are rented for shops. Pertinently, in cross examination, the
petitioner admitted that he expanded the building in his land by
spending money of Rs.20,00,000/- for constructing the same,
which itself shows that the petitioner is having landed
properties. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court, having respectable agreement with the decision
of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (Supra), is of the considered that
there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed
by the trial Court warranting inference by this Court and the
Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 25.06.2025
gms
