Telangana High Court
Arroju Naresh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 26 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3867 of 2025
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to set
aside the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.323 of
2022 in M.C.No.10 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Nidamanoor.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2,
claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed
a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
seeking interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for
their minor daughter (respondent No.3), pending disposal of
the main maintenance proceedings. The marriage was
solemnized on 24.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. It was alleged that at the time of marriage,
substantial dowry, comprising Rs.10,00,000/- and 10 tolas of
gold, was provided by the family of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
After residing briefly with the petitioner, respondent No.2
resumed her employment as an Assistant Executive Engineer
in TSGENCO. According to her, the petitioner, a Software
SKS,J
Engineer drawing a monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/-
subjected her to mental harassment, particularly on the
grounds of delayed conception. Despite her eventual
pregnancy and the birth of a female child on 18.01.2019, she
contended that the petitioner offered no support during or
after the pregnancy and remained uninvolved even during
crucial familial ceremonies. Though efforts at reconciliation
were initiated during proceedings before this Court, the
petitioner allegedly failed to follow through, notably by not
withdrawing the divorce petition he had filed earlier.
Respondent No.2, while independently employed, stated she
had engaged a caregiver for the child at a monthly cost of
Rs.15,000/-, asserting that the overall monthly expenses for
the child amounted to Rs.35,000/-.
3. The petitioner, in his counter, denied all allegations
including those related to dowry, harassment, and income.
However, he admitted his relationship with respondent Nos.2
and 3 and expressed willingness to provide Rs.7,500/- per
month as interim maintenance for the minor child. Despite
this admission, no payments were made, and the counsel of
the petitioner failed to appear for oral arguments.
SKS,J
4. The trial Court, while noting that disputed allegations
require trial, emphasized that the mother's earning capacity
does not absolve the father of his legal obligation to maintain
the child. Consequently, trial Court granted interim
maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.3,
effective from the date of filing of the petition, and directed the
respondent to credit the said amount directly into the bank
account of respondent No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner-husband filed the present criminal petition.
5. Heard Sri N. Vasishta, learned counsel appearing on
bhelaf of the petitioner as well as Sri Shaik Madar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set
aside and that there is a patent error in the order wherein it is
recorded that the matter was heard on 04.02.2021, despite
the fact that the main M.C.No.10 of 2022 itself was filed only
in July 2022. He further submitted that this clearly reflects a
factual inconsistency and raises serious doubts about the
judicial application of mind and that although the respondent
SKS,J
had filed an affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, the
impugned order was passed merely on the basis of pleadings,
without appreciating the financial disclosures of both parties.
This approach runs contrary to the binding precedents laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha 1 ,
and reaffirmed in Aditi @ Mitti v. Jitesh Sharma 2 , which
clearly mandate that no order relating to maintenance,
including interim maintenance, can be passed without due
consideration of the parties' financial disclosures.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
trial Court has mischaracterized a statement in the counter
affidavit as an admission, without providing an opportunity
for arguments or verification and that mere pleading cannot
be treated as conclusive admissions unless substantiated
through due process. He further contended that there are
internal contradictions in the order, one part states that
arguments were heard from both sides, while another records
that the counsel for the petitioner failed to appear. In fact, it
is submitted that the counsel for the petitioner arrived in
Court on the relevant date and was not permitted to address
(2021) 2 SCC 324
2023 Lawsuit (SC) 1112
SKS,J
arguments, as the order had already been prepared and
pronounced during call work. Therefore, he prayed the Court
to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this
criminal petition.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents
filed counter denying the averments made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner, who is
the legally wedded husband of the respondent, is avoiding his
responsibility to support their minor daughter. He further
submitted that the petitioner filed a divorce case on baseless
grounds and ignored the welfare of the child. Though he later
filed an affidavit expressing his wish to reconcile, and both
parties filed a joint memo before the family court, the
petitioner failed to withdraw the divorce petition as promised.
The trial Court ultimately dismissed the petition after finding
he had misled the Court. Thereafter, he filed another divorce
petition with the same claims, suppressing prior proceedings.
That too was dismissed as barred by law, yet the petitioner
continues to misuse judicial process by filing multiple
proceedings with misleading claims.
SKS,J
9. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the
maintenance proceedings, although the petitioner earns over
Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, he has failed to provide adequate
financial support to his child. The respondent sought
Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance, which is modest
considering the needs of the child and that the petitioner first
agreed to pay Rs.10,000/-, later reduced it to Rs.7,500/-, and
then filed this criminal petition challenging the order that
granted interim maintenance based on his own admission. He
further contended that the petitioner's shifting stands, evasive
conduct, and repeated attempts to avoid responsibility show a
clear pattern of non-cooperation. The reliance of the petitioner
in the case of Rajnesh (supra) is misplaced in this context.
That judgment does not absolve a father from his obligation to
maintain his child. The respondent has independently borne
all expenses while the petitioner continues to obstruct the
proceedings through technical objections and jurisdictional
claims. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal petition.
10. In light of the submissions made by both learned
counsel and upon careful perusal of the material available on
SKS,J
record, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the trial Court erred in passing the
impugned order without considering the assets and liabilities
affidavits filed by both parties, which, according to him, is
mandatory. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajnesh (cited supra) and the subsequent
decision in Aditi @ Mitti (cited supra), as well as the order of
this Court in C.R.P.No.1860 of 2023, to support his argument.
11. On going through the said contention, it is evident that
the petition was filed by the wife seeking maintenance for her
minor child, contending that although she is employed as an
Assistant Executive Engineer in TSGENCO, she is required to
engage a maid to take care of the minor child, thereby
incurring additional expenses. She sought an amount of
Rs.35,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the child.
The petitioner, in his counter, denied the said allegations but
voluntarily offered to pay Rs.7,500/- per month towards the
maintenance of the minor child, which prima facie indicates
his financial capacity.
SKS,J
12. The primary purpose of filing affidavits disclosing assets
and liabilities is to ascertain the earning capacity and
financial status of both parties. In the present case, there is
no dispute that both parties are well educated, and the
petitioner-wife has not sought maintenance for herself, having
candidly admitted her employment in TSGENCO. It is also
not in dispute that the minor child is not earning. Therefore,
merely on the ground that the trial Court did not discuss the
assets and liabilities affidavits in detail, the order cannot be
set aside, especially when the order of the trial Court is based
on the express admission of the petitioner that he is willing to
pay Rs.7,500/- per month. It is well settled that the father is
legally obligated to maintain his minor child, and both parents
share responsibility for the welfare of the child.
13. In the circumstances, this Court finds no illegality,
irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the trial
Court warranting interference. The petition is devoid of merit
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed,
confirming the order dated 28.02.2025 passed in
SKS,J
Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2022 in M.C.No.10 of 2022 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidamanoor.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SUJANA
Date: 26.06.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3867 of 2025
Date: 26.06.2025
SAI
