Saini Srinivasa Rao, Khammam Dt., v. Sainikotaiah, Khammam And 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITloN NO: 5088 OF 20'15 Between:
Saini Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Age 45 years, Occ Conductor in APSRTC, Sathupally Depot, Sathupally Town and Madal, Khammam District
...Petitioner/ResPondent
AND Sainikotaiah, Resident of H.No. 3-1 '19, Back side of Ramalaya Temple Street, Sathupally Town and Mandal,Khammam District.
SainiSanthamma W/o. Kotaiah, Resident of H.No. 3-119' Back side of Ramalaya Temple Street, Sathupally Town and Mandal,Khammam District. ...ResPondenUPetitioner The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad 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 order passed by the court of the JFCM Sathupally passed in M.C.No. 2 of 2011 dated 05-02-2012 which is partly allowed by the court of the Judge Family Court-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.R.P.No. 24 of 2013 dated 27-10-2014.
l.A. NO: 2OF 2O1S(CRLPMP. NO: 51960F 2015) 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 stay all further proceedings in M-C.No. 2 ot 2011 date: 05-02-2012, on ttre fite of the JFCM Sathupally pending disposal of criminal petition before this Hon'ble court and pass This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, Asst. Public
Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL cRIMINAL PETITION No.5O88 oF 2015 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 05.02.2012 in M.C.No.2 of 2Ol1 on the frle of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli (for short, "the trial Court"), which was partly allowed vide common order dated 27.1O.2014 in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2Ol3 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam (for short, "the appellate Court").
2. Heard Ms. Vanisree, learned counsel representing Dr. Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.3 State 3.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were the parents of the petitioner filed M.C.No. 2 of 2Ol7 against their son, who is the petitioner, before the trial Court seeking maintenance of Rs.5,O0O/- per month each from the date of filing of the petition alleging that, the petitioner necked out his parents from their own house. It is further stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were blessed with three daughters apart from the
petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that they were suffering from severe health ailments and the petitioner was possessing sufficient means to maintain them. The trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2013 in M.C.No.2 of 2011 held the petitioner liable to pay maintenance of Rs.2OOO/- to each respondent Nos, 1 and 2 frorn the date of filing of the petition on or before 10th of every month.
4.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the appellate Court. The learned appellate Judge, vide order dated 27.1O.2014 in Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2013 allowed the Revision 1n part confirming the order passed by the trial Court, but, modified the same by reducing the maintenalce amount to Rs.1,250/- per month, payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 each. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below erred in passing their respective orders and contended that the petitioner was earning salary of Rs.6,517/ - as per Ex Rl and he is under an obligation to maintain his son, who was studying 10th class and a daughter, studying B.Tech. Moreover, respondent No.1 receives an amount of Rs.1O,O0O/-
towards pension and he retired from service in the year' 2002' Further, respondent No.1 received an amount of rupees ten lakhs towards retirement benefits. Respondent No'2 was also possessing a house site worth twelve lakhs on her name' Therefore, petitioner stated that respondent Nos'l and 2 were possessingsufficientmeanstomaintainthemselvesandthatthe petitioner is bound to maintain his children and wife. Therefore, seeks to allow the Criminal Petition.
6.
l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellate Court after careful scrutiny of the material available on record rightly passed the impugned order and held that the quantum of maintenance awarded to respondent Nos' 1 and 2 is quite meager in view of escalation of prices in today's context' Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Criminal Petition' 7.
The trial Court, on behalf of respondent Nos'I and 2 examined PWs.l and 2 and marked Exs.Pl to P21' On behalf of petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as RWl and marked Exs.Rl to R4. After careful scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court, observed that the parents of petitioner had taken care of him and provided him with proper education and performed his marriage. The petitioner herein is
the only son to the parents, who have performed the marriages of their three daughters without any support from the petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court, holding that the petitioner was bound to maintain his parents, rightly passed the order dated O5.O2.2O12 in M.C.No.2 of 201 1'
8.
Upon an appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the appellate Court held that the petitioner neglected his parents without providing maintenance and observed that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenalce to his old aged parents, who were suffering from health ailments. However, reduced the quantum of maintenance payable by the petitioner to respondent Nos' 1 and 2 each from Rs.2,OOO/- to Rs.1,250/- per month' g.
A perusal of the record shows that the matter pertains to the year, 2015 and this Court vide order dated 22'06'2015 granted interim stay of the order passed by the appellate Court with regard to the maintenance payable to respondent No'1, who was a pensioner, for a period of six weeks. Further, stating that the order with respect to respondent No.2 sha'll not be disturbed' Therefore, the matter is being listed today i'e., on 02.11.2023. But nothing is available on record till date' to show that the order passed by this Court is being complied with by the petitioner.
10. Therefore, upon careful consideration of the entire materia-l available on record, this Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded to respondent Nos.1 ald 2 is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people, now a days, have escalated to a larger extent. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Criminal Petition as it is devoid any merit'
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Judge, Family Court- cum- Addl.Sessions Judge, Khammam. 3 ?,13 33Ji"'Jl ?ifln Bi:l:x',lJif 3lffiil?FMBfHfro+' + "t^^8"*" + H\ao.t*{
4. Two CD Copies.
SM fr
HIGH COURT DATED:0211112023 HE STATE ( q J ,J : 0 ,jA|l 202[ C) I , P s L.
ORDER
CRLP.No.5088 of 2015 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED +.os"5 YY- ,-ttt\'r