Devaraya Bakkaiah, v. The State Of Telangana,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 4 OF 2019 Crl.Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC against the Judgement dated 04-10-2018 against the order passed by the Court of Judge, Family Court cum lll Addl. District Judge at Warangal in M.C.No.42 of 2016.

Between:

Devaraya Bakkaiah,, S/o.Yellaiah, Age 45 yrs, Occ.Police Consitable No.1597, ln WPS Warangal (U), R/o. Deendayal Nagar, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda,Warangal

...Petitioner/Respondent

AND The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

Devaraya Sarola @ Bhavani, W/o. Bakkaiah, Age. 38 yrs, Occ: Household Devaraya Sairakshit,, S/o Bakkaiah, Aged 6 years, Student, being Minor Rep., by Respondent No.2 and the natural mother, Devaraya Saroja @ Bhavani, Both Rio H.No.1-9-1286/1, Deendayal Nagar, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal

...Respondents/Petitioners

lA No: I OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in order passed by the Judge Family Court At Warangal in MC.No. 42 of 2O16 dated 04-10-2018. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. SRIKANTH, AD\IOCATE REP. SRI ALLADI RAVINDER counsel for the Respondent No.1: AsslstANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 &3: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

7'

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAT CRIMINAL sION CASE No.4 OF 2o19 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is fil dated 04.10.2018 in M.C.No.42 of 20t6 Judge, Family Court_cum_III ed aggrieved by the order on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, at Warangal (for short, "the trial Court,,).

2.

Heard Mr Srikanth, learned counsel representing Mr. Alladi d counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizatath AIi, t Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent Ravinder, learne Iearned Assistan No. 1 state.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.I was performed on 2r..o2.7ggg and the couple were blessed with two daughters and a son out of their wedrock' After the birth of the first daughter, the petitioner started subjecting respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty for wan t of additional dowry. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No'2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 49g_A, 323, 506 I.p.C. and 3 ald 4 of Dowry prohibition Act. As respondent Nos.2 and 3 were unable to maintain themselves, they filed maintenance case

against the petitioner seeking maintenance before the trial Court. Vide order dated O4.10.2018 in M.C.No.42 of 2016, the trial Court granted an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3 each from the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner was further granted a sum of Rs.1O,O0O/- towards costs of the petition. Assailing the same, the present Revision. 4.

l,earned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 deserted the petitioner on her own accord and she possessed sufficient means to maintain herself and her son. Without considering the same, the trial Court passed the impugned order which is untenable. Therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned order.

5.

lrarned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court after appreciating the oral and documentarSr evidence available on record in proper p.r"pectiu., rightly passed the impugrred order, which is very meager in view of escalation of prices in today's context. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.

6.

Before the trial Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Pl to PlO were marked. On behalf of petitioner, RWs. I to 4 were examined and no documents

,) were marked. After appreciating oral and documentaqr evidence, the trial Court observed that the petitioner has not placed any documentary proof to show that respondent No.2 was the owner of the house property and earning an income of Rs.10,OOO/- as rent. Therefore, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not possess sufficient means to maintain themselves and the petitioner neglected to maintain them. Upon considering the fact that the petitioner was a police Constable, the trial Court awarded an amount of Rs.10,OOO/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3 each as maintenance lrom the date of filing of the petition.

7.

A perusal of the record shows that the Revision pertains to the year, 2Ol9 and this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020 I t granted interim stay of the impugned order, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. l5,OOO l- per month towards maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3 together, tiII the Revision is disposed of. If any arrears accrued, the same were directed to be deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of order. It was made clear that if the petitioner failed to comply with the said order, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were at liberty to execute the order passed by the trial Court as per law.

o 8.

Till date nothing is available on record to show that the order dated l3.lO.2O2O passed by this Court is being complied with. Upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this court is of the view that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court is just, fair and equitable. The impugned order was passed upon taking into consideration the economic standards of the petitioner vis-a-vis the cost of living standards of people in the present day society. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the Revision is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. 9.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. B. SATYAVATH OEPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court cum lll Addl. District Judge at Warangal

2. One CC to SRI ALLADT RAVTNDER Advocate IOPUC]

3. One CC to SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE (OPUC)

4. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PROSECUTOR , High Court of Tetarpana at Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD Copies MY Y+'

h HIGH COURT I DATED:0611212023 _2. -::-==}.- ,ir : lii-: SrZ,-'.\.

,/- /-,'-'

! ,j li.J ll ..;i?"

ORDER

2 6 i4/,ln ?;,1+ GRLRC.No.4 of 2019 a- -l' ,ri t DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

df(6 W, g