Sep Rapaka Mohana Rao v. The State Of Telangana
;1 [ 338s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYOERABAD THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5898 OF 2022 AND CRIMINAL PETITION NO:5911 OF 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5898 OF 2022 Between:
Sep Rapaka Mohana Rao, S/o Ramaiah, Aged- 36 Years, Occ- Rtd. Time Scale Naik, Army R/o Gollapalem Village, Yerramukkam (Post), Mandasa (M), Srikakulam District, A.P -532262 ... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND The State of Telangana, The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT No.1 Smt. Rapaka Padma, Wo Mohana Rao, Aged- 36 Years, Occ- Employee, Master Rapaka Divyansh, Aged- 8 Years Occ- Student Baby R. Rakshitha, Aged- 5 Years Occ- Student (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are being minors rep. by their mother) All are R/o 1-16-14812, Madhavai Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad 1.
2.
3.
4.
...RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 4/PETITIONERS No.1 to 3 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the interim maintenance passed in common order vide Crl. M.P. Nos. 3 of 2020 in M.C. No. 58 of 2019 dated 1OlO1l2O22 on the file of Hon'ble XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.
l.A. NO: 'l OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in Crl. M.P. No. 3 of 2020 in M.C. No. 58 of 2019 by the learned Hon'ble XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri dated 10.01 .2022.
,''/ cRTMTNAL PETrfloN No: s911 oF 2022 Between:
Sep Rapaka Mohana Rao, S/o Ramaiah, Aged. 36 Years. Occ. Rtd. Time Scale Naik, Army R/o Gollapalem Village, Yerramukkam (Post), Mandasa (M), Srikakulam District, A. P. -532262.
...PETITIONERRESPONDENT AND
1. The State of Telangana, The Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad.
. .RESPONDENT No l
2. Smt. Rapaka Padma, Wo lvlohana Rao, Aged. 36 Years, Occ. Employeer
3. Master Rapaka Divyansh, Aged B Years,Occ. Student.
4. Baby R. Rakshitha, Aged. 5 Years,Occ.Student. (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are being minors rep. by their mother) All are R/o 1-16-14812, Madhaval Nagar Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4/PETIT|ONERS NO.1 to 3 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the interim marntenance passed in common order vide Crl. M.P. Nos. 13 ot 202O in M.C. No. 58 of 2019 dated 10.01 .2022 on the file of Hon'ble XVI Addl District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.
LA. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in Crl. M.p. No. 13 of 2O2O in M.C. No. 58 of 20'19 by the learned Hon'ble XVlAddl District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Matkajgiri dated 10 O1 .2022. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argUments of Sri V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA ,Advocate for the Petitioner in tni-'driminat petitionsand Sri D.Arun Kumar, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 in the both Criminal Petitions and of Sri M.Ratan Singh, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.fn b4r" cr\p{ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5898 and 9lL of 2022 COMMON ORDER:
Both the Criminal Petitions have been filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 10.0L.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3 and 13 of 2020 in M.C.No.SB of 2019 on the file oF XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri. In Crl.M.P.No.L3 of 2020, the trial Court granted the interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent Nos.2 to 4 directed the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.18,352l- to the petitioners. The Crl.M.P,No.3 of 2020, the petition filed for attachment of retirement benefits of the petitioner till the disposal of the M.C was allowed.
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
3.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2O2O seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.3 and 4, pending disposal
$:
of the main MC and also filed Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2020 seeking to order attachment of retirement benefits of the petitioner and the same were allowed by common order, dated 70.01.2022 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and also ordered attachment of retirement benefits of the petitioner till the disposal of the main M.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions have been filed.
Heard Sri K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-State and Sri M. Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not observed the fact that the petitioner is retired from the service. He further submitted that the petitioner is getting basic salary of Rs.42,050/- per month and he is getting half of the pension, which is not sufficient to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the each respondent i.e. total Rs.24,000/- per month as per the l I i!
!
;i I
impugned order dated 10.07.2022, Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order.
6.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the petitioner has not complied with the order, dated lO.OL.2022. It is further submitted that the trial Court has also observed that no prejudice would be caused to the case of petitioner herein if the attachment of retirement benefits is ordered. He also submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not having any source of income, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.
7.
The record shows that the petitioner is getting pension of Rs.42,O5O/-. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court in awarding interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the trial Court has to decide the main M.C. after completion of the trial. As such, the Criminal Petition No.5911 of 2022 is liable to be dismissed. B.
Insofar as Criminal Petition No.5B9B of 2022 is concerned, this Criminal Petition is filed only to avoid his
a liability to pay interim maintenance amount. The petitioner has applied for discharge from his services of Army and that the respondents-wife and children of the petitioner are entitled for the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied the said contention stating that till date he has not applied for discharge from his service. The trial Court without considering the same, had observed that no prejudice would be caused to the case of the petitioner herein, if the retirement benefits of the petitioner are attached till the disposal of the main case.
9.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein contended that if the terminal benefits are released, the respondents will be deprived of any source of income and that the petitioner will escape from his liability. i 10.
The question to be decided here is whether the I I I attachment of terminal benefits of the petitioner herein is proper. Perusal of record shows that attachment is ordered on the ground that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner contention is that if it is not raised he will not get benefits that will be given by the Government and I I I I
also alternative employment and also it is difficult to him to pay the maintenance to the respondents.
11.
In view of the above submissions made by both learned counsel for the respective parties, it is clear that if the retirement benefits are not released, the respondents cannot get any maintenance amount from the petitioner. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of Crl.P.No.5898 of 2022 directing the trial Court to raise the attachment order subject to the condition of the petitioner furnishing an undertaking to pay the interim maintenance amount regularly to the respondents. Further on condition to deposit the arrears if any.
12.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.5911 of 2022 is dismissed and the Criminal Petition No.5898 of 2022 is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/. A. SRIN ASSISTAN IVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER to",. ,n" xvl Addl. District and sessions Judge' Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri.
z or"'dd t" sRl v.s.R.M.v. PRASAD SANAKA' Ad-vocate [oPUC]
3. 6;; cC i" snr M. RArAN SlNGH,Advocate [oPUCl
4. Two CCs to PUBLIC pnb'sECuron'uigr' court forihe State of Telangana At HYderabad[OUT]
5. Two CD CoPies AR/qh \q'
HIGH COURT i ) DATED:031'1O12024 '.,-,;\ 2it21 !r r -L_, ) -\ ,.. ,,/ \ COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.5898 ot 2022 AND CRLP.No. 5911 ol 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CRL.P. No. S89B ot 2022 And DISMISSING THE CRL.P. No. 5911 ot 2O22 q tDPtua #--