Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1457 (TS)

Gogireddy Naresh Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-11-12

RENUKA YARA

body2025
ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri P. Bosu Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri V. Apparao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2024 in M.C.No.3 of 2024, dated 26.03.2025, wherein, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition pending disposal of the main case and to pay arrears of maintenance within two months from the date of order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of revision petitioner who was married as per Hindu rites and customs to respondent No.2 on 22.03.2023 at Pedda Amberpet, Hayat Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The marriage between the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 is love marriage. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was born out of wedlock on 19.11.2023. After marriage, according to respondent No.2, the revision petitioner was spending a lavish life and spent all the money given by her parents at the time of marriage and then, there was demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. After the birth of respondent No.3, the said amount was given and the same was spent for his lavish needs. Again, there was harassment for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and she was necked out of the house culminating in filing of case in Crime No.38 of 2023 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent No.2 was dependent on her parents to raise respondent No.3 and therefore, sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. 4. According to respondent No.2, the revision petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- per month from business, Rs.20,000/- from rents and Rs.20,000/- by raising vegetables and commercial crops. Therefore, the respondent No.2 had sufficient means to provide the maintenance. Whereas the case of the revision petitioner is that no amounts were given to him at the time of marriage. After marriage, the respondent No.2 was diagnosed with Appendicitis wherein the revision petitioner had spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards her treatment. The respondent No.2 is a B.Com graduate, she is working with MNC from home and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas the case of the revision petitioner is that no amounts were given to him at the time of marriage. After marriage, the respondent No.2 was diagnosed with Appendicitis wherein the revision petitioner had spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards her treatment. The respondent No.2 is a B.Com graduate, she is working with MNC from home and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas the revision petitioner is doing a small job having studied only up to Intermediate. The revision petitioner is a Site surveyor in Delight Interiors earning sum of Rs.16,500/- per month. He does not have any assets and he pays monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- per month for their house. The respondent No.2 has agricultural land of one acre in her name at Sy.No.54/AA/2/2 in Veltur Village where she is raising crops and vegetables has agricultural income. The revision petitioner pleaded that at the request of respondent No.2, he dropped her at her house and on her own demand all her gold ornaments are given to her. The respondent No.2 abused him in vulgar language and threatened him with suicide if he does not come to her parents’ house and when the revision petitioner went to the house of respondent No.2, he was beaten up due to which he was admitted in hospital. The revision petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 stayed with him only for three weeks and harassed him and left the matrimonial house on her own accord and therefore, not entitled to maintenance. 5. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to pay arrears of maintenance within two months. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is filed. 6. In grounds of revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that he is a private employee with limited income, that respondent No.2 neglected and deserted him and living separately since May, 2024 without discharging her duties as a wife. The revision petitioner further pleaded that there is no fault or negligence on his part. The fact that he is living in a rented house is not considered. Further, the revision petitioner is providing medical expenses to respondent No.2 even though she is living separately and is taking care of her health condition. The revision petitioner further pleaded that there is no fault or negligence on his part. The fact that he is living in a rented house is not considered. Further, the revision petitioner is providing medical expenses to respondent No.2 even though she is living separately and is taking care of her health condition. It is emphasized that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on her own accord in May, 2024 without any justifiable cause and never cared for the welfare of the revision petitioner and did not allow him to show his love and affection towards his minor child. In the circumstances, the revision petitioner prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 7. The background facts about the love marriage between the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 and birth of a minor girl out of the wed lock are not in dispute. The dispute is about whether the revision petitioner harassed the respondent No.2 or she left the matrimonial house on her own accord. This issue can be resolved only after full-fledged trial. Currently, the point to be considered is whether the interim maintenance granted is appropriate or not. 8. On one hand, the respondent No.2 pleaded that her husband has monthly income from business at Rs.50,000/-, rents at Rs.20,000/- and income from commercial crops at Rs.20,000/- i.e. approximately total income of Rs.90,000/- per month. To the contrary, the case of the revision petitioner is that he is a private employee at Delight Interiors and has salary of Rs.16,500/- per month. He has no other property but has to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,000/-. In addition, he is also taking care of the needs of respondent No.2 and her child towards medical expenses. 9. There is a vast difference between the claims made by the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 with regard to income of revision petitioner i.e. Rs.90,000/- per month as per respondent No.2 and only Rs.16,500/- per month as per revision petitioner. There is no other evidence available on record to ascertain the truth in the version presented by either of the parties. Only after the main M.C is decided by ascertaining the assets and liabilities of the parties, can a clear stand be taken. At this juncture, the trial Court as well as this Court have to proceed on the facts made available on record. Only after the main M.C is decided by ascertaining the assets and liabilities of the parties, can a clear stand be taken. At this juncture, the trial Court as well as this Court have to proceed on the facts made available on record. The fact remains that there is no proof about the income of the revision petitioner for Rs.90,000/- per month. Likewise, there is no evidence about the respondent No.2 earning Rs.25,000/- per month as an employee of an MNC by working from home. The only fact admitted is the income of the revision petitioner at Rs.16,500/- per month. In said income, awarding interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month with Rs.2,500/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is the bare minimum and may not be sufficient for survival. The respondent No.3 was a four months child at the time of filing of maintenance case. Awarding Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance of a four months child is bare minimum to meet her maintenance and medical needs. Similarly, Rs.2,500/- for maintenance of respondent No.2 who has just delivered a child is bare minimum which may not be sufficient. Since the amount granted is only interim maintenance without any further evidence on record in support of contentions of either the revision petitioner or respondent No.2, this Court sees absolutely no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The revision case lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2024 in M.C.No.3 of 2024, dated 26.03.2025. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed.