Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1304 (TS)

Sai Kiran Vishwagna Saraph v. Ravula Jyothi

2025-10-27

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri M.D.Yakub Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vadlakonda Ravi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2021, dated 14.02.2025, wherein, the said petition was allowed in part directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance at Rs.12,000/- to the respondent herein on or before 5 th of every succeeding month from the date of filing of the petition excluding the payment of interim maintenance amount paid if any to the respondent. The petitioner herein was further directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in three equal instalments within three months from the date of order. 3. The events leading to the filing of Maintenance Case are that the petitioner and respondent were married on 09.08.2020 at Karimnagar Town as per Hindu rites and customs. Thereafter, the respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty with a demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. In addition, there was pressure on the respondent to purchase Flat at Hyderabad in the name of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner was addicted to alcohol used to return home at late hours and subjected the respondent to physical and mental cruelty under the effect of physical intoxication. In this context, disputes arose leading to filing of Crime No.78 of 2021 on the file of W.P.S, Karimnagar for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 506 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent is a helpless lady dependent upon her parents and incurring Rs.20,000/- per month for her food, clothes, medicines. Whereas, the respondent is working as Product Manager in Byjus group and earning Rs.16,00,000/- per annum. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is unemployed that never subjected the respondent to physical and mental cruelty, never intimidated the respondent and her family members with dire consequences. Further, it is the case of the petitioner the respondent is an educated lady having pursued B.Tech and working for multinational companies. The petitioner lost his job at Byjus due to the propaganda of father of the respondent and therefore, he cannot provide any maintenance. 5. Further, it is the case of the petitioner the respondent is an educated lady having pursued B.Tech and working for multinational companies. The petitioner lost his job at Byjus due to the propaganda of father of the respondent and therefore, he cannot provide any maintenance. 5. After considering the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Judge has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- with arrears of maintenance to be paid in three equal installments within a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is preferred. 6. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the respondent has chosen to leave the matrimonial house on 03.01.2021 and moved the maintenance case on 20.10.2021 after lapse of ten months. Reference is made on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case between Haunsabai Vs. Balakrishna , 1981 Cri LJ 110 , wherein, it is held that when the wife is capable of earning her livelihood and maintain herself independently, allowance cannot be granted indiscriminately. The petitioner was sincere in attending the counselling sessions, but the respondent refused to speak to the petitioner. The petitioner intended to start the conjugal relationship, but the respondent bluntly refused. Reference is made to the cross examination of the respondent as P.W.1, where there is admission that the respondent worked as mother teacher in Advitha International School in the year 2016 on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Further, it is pleaded that the respondent is not suffering with any physical and mental disability and no incapacity to seek maintenance. 7. Emphasis is made on admission of respondent that she did not attempt to talk to the petitioner after lodging of criminal complaint and that she still is residing with her parents. Further, reference is made to the admission of the respondent about her lack of interest in living with the petitioner though he would provide maintenance at his house. The petitioner referred to the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case between Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal , 2000 SCC OnLine MP 580 wherein, it is held that maintenance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. Rajesh Jaiswal , 2000 SCC OnLine MP 580 wherein, it is held that maintenance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside. 8. A perusal of the evidence on record i.e., the chief and cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 and RWs 1 and 2 shows that the couple lived together only for about three months. On 31.12.2020, some dispute arose followed by the respondent leaving the matrimonial house and never returned back. There was some incident on 27.01.2021 and thereafter, the respondent filed criminal case six months after leaving the house of the petitioner and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.78 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420 and 506 of I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner also filed DVC case and the present Maintenance Petition under revision. 9. The learned Judge, Family Court made several presumptions in appreciating the evidence adduced before the said Court. The evidence in chief of PW1 is treated as gospel truth by ignoring the contrary admissions made by the respondent as PW1 in her cross examination. Said contradictions are discussed in the following paragraphs. 10. The first and foremost claim of the respondent is that ever since marriage, there was physical and mental harassment by the petitioner herein with demand for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- and a demand to purchase flat in the name of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the petitioner and respondent have lived together only for a period of three months after their marriage. According to the respondent, in said three months period, the couple lived happily only for 10 days and thereafter, there was harassment and pressure to bring additional dowry. This harassment has been informed by the respondent to her parents and also informed the petitioner and his parents that her parents cannot provide any more dowry and, in such circumstance, there was an attempt to kill the respondent by locking her in a dark room. 11. This harassment has been informed by the respondent to her parents and also informed the petitioner and his parents that her parents cannot provide any more dowry and, in such circumstance, there was an attempt to kill the respondent by locking her in a dark room. 11. It is the case of the respondent in her evidence in chief that on 03.01.2021, the petitioner and his family members have beaten her and necked out from her house with a demand for additional dowry and therefore, she went back to Karimnagar. This evidence is in contrary with the admission of respondent (PW1) during her cross examination, which is as follows: “I have left my in-laws house on 03.01.2021 and I was taken by my parents. I have voluntarily left my in-laws house and requested my parents to take me from the house of in-laws as there was dispute arose between me and the respondent on 31.12.2020 and I have informed the said dispute to my father after two days of the said dispute. I have not reported the incident with regard to the dispute between me and the respondent to the nearest police station.” 12. The above oral evidence of the respondent destroys two of her claims. First is that she left the house of the petitioner on account of a dispute between herself and the petitioner on 31.12.2020. There is no reference to the involvement of parents of the petitioner in said dispute which occurred between the petitioner and respondent on 31.12.2020. The second point to be noted is that after the dispute, the respondent informed her parents about the dispute after two days of the incident and requested them to take her to her parental house. At the request of the respondent, her parents have taken her to their house i.e. the version of the respondent about the petitioner and his parents beating her and necking her out of the house on 03.01.2021 is completely a false statement. There is no evidence about the petitioner and his parents locking her in a dark room. At the request of the respondent, her parents have taken her to their house i.e. the version of the respondent about the petitioner and his parents beating her and necking her out of the house on 03.01.2021 is completely a false statement. There is no evidence about the petitioner and his parents locking her in a dark room. In complete disregard to the admission made by the respondent about voluntarily leaving the matrimonial house and she being taken at her request by her parents, the learned Judge, Family court for the reasons best known assumed and presumed that the evidence in chief of PWs 1 and 2 proves harassment meted by the petitioner and his parents in demand of additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. 13. The next incident which is highlighted by both the parties is visit of the respondent, her father, maternal uncle and cousin along with some antisocial elements to the house of the petitioner for ostensible reason of pacifying the disputes. According to the respondent, the petitioner on the advise of his father lodged a police report in Afzalgunj Police station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.407 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 307, 504, 506, 351, 353 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. With respect to the same incident, the version of the petitioner is that the respondent and her family members along with antisocial elements came to his house and created a galata and some of the mediators advised the parents of the respondent to keep quiet but they did not heed. The respondent, her parents along with brother and others have packed the belongings of the respondent in four big briefcases along with ornaments, sarees and cash and packed every belonging. About this incident, there is no credible evidence either on the part of the petitioner or the respondent to ascertain the true events that have taken place. In case, the complaint and its contents were provided before this Court by the petitioner, there could have been some insight into the event that occurred on the day, however, no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the truth in the version of the petitioner or the respondent cannot be ascertained. In case, the complaint and its contents were provided before this Court by the petitioner, there could have been some insight into the event that occurred on the day, however, no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the truth in the version of the petitioner or the respondent cannot be ascertained. However, the learned Judge, Family Court chose to rely upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to come to an erroneous assumption and presumption that the petitioner and his parents did not allow the respondent and her family members to pacify the dispute. Further, an erroneous presumption is drawn on the basis of oral evidence of R.W.1 (petitioner) that they lived happy marital life for three months until the respondent leaving the matrimonial house on 03.01.2021. The learned Judge, Family Court raised a hyper technical question as to why the respondent, her family members along with anti-social evidence would trespass into the house of petitioner when there was harmonious matrimonial relationship between the parties for three months. A comparative analysis of the case of petitioner and the respondent on this issue shows that no presumption can be drawn in favour of either one or the other party. 14. The third important point to be noted is the communication between the parties for reconciliation before filing of criminal complaint by the respondent. As per evidence in chief of PW1, after the respondent left the matrimonial house neither the petitioner nor his family members ever contacted her and did not allow her to join his society. The relevant portion of evidence in chief of PW1 is extracted and produced below:- “I submit that on 03-01-2021, the respondent and his family members beat me and necked out me from their house stating that they are not going to allow me unless I bring addition dowry as demanded by them, as such I came down to Karimnagar, Thereafter I myself, my parents along with elders went to the house of respondent on 27-01-2021 and tried to convince the respondent and his family members, but they did not allowed us into house stating that they are not going to allow me, unless I bring additional dowry and residential flat with registration in the name of respondent No.1, as such we came back to Karimnagar, Since then neither the respondent nor his family members made any phone call to me. Several times I tried to contact with the respondent over phone, but he never responded and further the respondent and his family members are threatening me to face dire consequences. Since then the respondent did not turn up, neither he allowed me to his society nor paying any amount to me for my maintenance. I submit that, due to cruelty of the Respondent and his family members, I am apprehending danger to my life. The Respondent is always cruel with me in petty reasons and also threatening me over phone with dire consequences, the Respondent and his family members humiliated and harassed me demanding additional dowry. The respondent necked out me from his house by taking all gold ornaments and valuable cloths and all the efforts made by me to join the Respondent are went in vain.” 15. In complete contrast to the above evidence in chief, the respondent in her cross examination admitted that she did not make any attempt to talk to the respondent after lodging the report. The relevant portion is extracted and produced below:- “I have not made any attempt to talk to the respondent after lodging the report. It is not true to suggest that the respondent had made attempt to talk to me in the police station but I have refused to talk to him.” 16. The respondent made an attempt to give a picture of the petitioner as a complete bad person who did not have any concern about his wife. However, in cross examination the respondent admitted that the petitioner has gifted her sarees worth Rs.15,000/- and one watch (Michael Kors). On one hand the petitioner denied going out after marriage along with the petitioner and on the other hand deposed that the petitioner himself went to celebrate honeymoon on his own. The relevant portion is extracted and produced below:- “I am still residing along with my parents. It is true the respondent had gifted sarees to me worth of Rs.15,000/- and one watch (Michal Kors)…… Witness volunteers that the respondent had alone went to celebrate honeymoon.” 17. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the respondent’s father is a friend of local Minister Gangula Kamalakar who has influence and therefore, the petitioner was frequently summoned to the Woman Police Station and made to sit hours together from morning to evening. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the respondent’s father is a friend of local Minister Gangula Kamalakar who has influence and therefore, the petitioner was frequently summoned to the Woman Police Station and made to sit hours together from morning to evening. This kind of a fact situation about having political influence is available on the part of the respondent but not the petitioner to take any highhanded steps. 18. The last fact to be considered is whether the petitioner neglected and refused to maintain the respondent, whether the respondent is unable to maintain herself and whether the petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the respondent. In this regard, the version of the respondent is that the petitioner has no interest to take her back and did not allow her to join his society. To the contrary, the version of the petitioner is that he made several attempts to pacify the disputes with the respondent but there was no response. In the backdrop of these contradictory versions when the oral evidence of the respondent is perused, it is seen that she is not interested in living with the petitioner. The relevant portion is extracted and produced below: “I am not interested to reside along with the respondent though respondent will look after me or will provide maintenance to me at his house.” 19. The above evidence of the respondent shows that she has no intention whatsoever of living conjugal life with the petitioner irrespective of the fact that the petitioner will look after her and will also provide maintenance at his house. In this context, it is to be noted that there was one single dispute on 31.12.2020 and thereafter, it is the respondent who left to the matrimonial house along with her parents voluntarily. Such being the case, no presumption and assumption can be made against the petitioner about neglecting his wife. 20. Having considered the attitude of the respondent i.e. her refusal to join the matrimonial society, there is a need to ascertain whether the respondent is unable to maintain herself. The contention of the respondent is that she is a B.Tech graduate and has once worked as a teacher with income of Rs.10,000/- per month. After marriage, the respondent is reporting inability to work on account of depression. The contention of the respondent is that she is a B.Tech graduate and has once worked as a teacher with income of Rs.10,000/- per month. After marriage, the respondent is reporting inability to work on account of depression. This contention of the respondent has to be considered in the backdrop of her own evidence about there being a single dispute between herself and the petitioner on the intervening night of 31.12.2020 which is the basis for leaving the society of the petitioner and her decision never to join the petitioner in spite of him providing her maintenance at his house. A question arises as to whether the respondent can suffer with mental depression on account of a single event on 31.12.2020 in the month of April, 2023. If so, there is no evidence on record to believe that the respondent is suffering with any kind of mental depression. The respondent being a qualified B.Tech graduate can always maintain herself in case effort is made. In this context, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case between Manmohan Singh v. Mahindra Kaur, 1976 (3) LAWS (All) 1 needs to be considered. In said case, the High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “Under Section 125 (1) (a) Cr.P.C ., 1973, maintenance allowance cannot be granted to every wife who is neglected by her husband or whose husband refuses to maintain her but can only be granted to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. It may be pointed out that this is a-departure from Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 wherein every wife, whether she was able or was not able to maintain herself, was entitled to maintenance if she was neglected or not maintained by her husband. As it was not alleged by the opposite party in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C ., 1973 and it was also not stated by her in her statement recorded by the C. J. M., Dehradun that she was unable to maintain herself and no finding has been recorded by the C.J, M., Dehradun or the Sessions Judge, Dehradun that the opposite party was unable to maintain herself, the order of the C.J. M., Dehradun dated 3-8-1975 and the order of the Sessions Judge, Dehradun dated 2-9-1975 are clearly illegal.” 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of High Court of Karnataka in case between Haunsabai v. Balkrishna , 1980 (2) LAWS (KAR) 8 , wherein it is held as follows: “In view of the various social measures and the changed conditions of the society, the Legislature in its wisdom has probably thought it necessary that maintenance to a wife as provided under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C . should be provided only to a wife who is unable to maintain herself or has no sufficient means to maintain herself. The law as it stands has to be enforced, though it may in some cases work hardship on the wives. The petitioner-herein having failed to aver positively in her petition and substantiate it from the witness box that she was unable to maintain herself, the petition will have to fail.” 22. When the case of the respondent for maintenance is considered in the backdrop of the aforementioned judgments, it is seen that the case of the respondent is not that she is not capable of maintaining herself but she is unable to maintain herself due to mental depression. To consider the case of the respondent for grant of maintenance on the ground of mental depression, there should be credible evidence to believe the same. Except for the self serving claim of being under mental depression, the respondent did not produce credible oral or documentary evidence to support said contention. To the contrary, it is the respondent’s own version that she is a B.Tech graduate and she had worked as a Teacher in a School with monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- in the year 2016. A qualified B.Tech graduate cannot be expected to sit idle on the pretext of mental depression and seek maintenance from her husband. It is also pertinent to note that the version of the petitioner is that he lost his job in the month of October, 2021 as Project Manager of Byjus Group. Irrespective of the employment of the petitioner, in case the respondent is unable to maintain herself, the petitioner can be directed to provide maintenance. In the instant case, the admission of the respondent about she being a B.Tech graduate and having prior experience of working are sufficient to conclude that the respondent is not a person who is not capable of maintaining herself. 23. In the instant case, the admission of the respondent about she being a B.Tech graduate and having prior experience of working are sufficient to conclude that the respondent is not a person who is not capable of maintaining herself. 23. In view foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent failed to prove that the petitioner neglected her or failed to maintain her. It is the respondent who does not want to join the marital society of her husband and does not want to be maintained by her husband. 24. Before parting with the case, this Court takes note of the fact that the respondent approached the Court with unclean hands by giving a false version in her pleadings and evidence in chief about the petitioner and his parents beating her up and necking her out on 03.01.2021. The real fact is that there was dispute between the respondent and the petitioner on 31.01.2020 which did not involve the parents of the petitioner. After the said dispute, the respondent informed about the same to her parents. After two days i.e., on 02.01.2021 on the very next day, the respondent’s parents came to the house of the petitioner and took away the respondent and she voluntarily left the house. This entire sequence does not show any violence on the part of the petitioner or his parents. Presenting such version to gain sympathy cannot be encouraged. Any person who approaches the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to any relief. 25. To sum up, the respondent failed to prove negligence on the part of the petitioner to maintain her, her incapacity to maintain herself and has approached the Court with unclean hand and therefore not entitled to the relief prayed for. Whereas, the learned Family Court misguided itself in perusing the admissions made by the respondent in her cross examination and on the basis of unwarranted presumptions granted maintenance. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set-aside. 26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2021. Consequently, the F.C.M.C.No.14 of 2021 is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand closed.