Sri Avadhutha Mahesh , Uma Mahesh v. The State Of Telangana

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE :PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3278 0F 2017 Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C. against the Order dated 07-11-2017 made in M.C.No.28 of 2013on the file of the Court of the Family Court Judge, at Khammam.

Between:

Sri Avadhutha Mahesh, Uma Mahesh, S/o- Ramamurthy, Software Engineer, Rl/o. Plot No. 912, H.M.T.Colony, Near Supriya Hair Cutting Saloon, -Madhapur, Hyderabad.

... Accused/Petitioner AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor's High Court Buildings, High Court at Hyderabad, Hyderabad.

2. Smt A.Srilatha, Wo. Avadutha Mahesh or A.Uma Mahesh, Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 7-1-4lA, Near Venkatagiri Railway Gate, Khammam Town and District.

3. A.Hemnesh, S/o. Avadhutha Mahesh, aged 5 years, rep. by his mother and natural guardian Smt.Srilatha - 2nd respondent herein. ... ComplainanURespondent lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time for deposit of amounts as directed by this Honourable Court order datd 27 -12-2017 in Crl.Rc.No. 3278 of 2017.

lA NO: 1 OF 2017 Petition under Section 482 OF Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY the order daled 7-112017 in MC-No. 28 ot 2013 on the court of the Hon'ble I

Family court Judge at Khammam., pending disposal of CRLRC 3278 ot 2017, on the file of the High Court.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D V Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.i: Sri Vizarath Ali, Asst. public prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER

^,7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CR.IMINAL REV.ISLOII CASE No.3278 OF 2017 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., is filed by the accused/petitioner, challenging the judgment, dated 07.L1.20L7, passed in M.C.No.28 of 2013 on the file of learned Family Court Judge, at Khammam.

Heard Ms.Vani, learned counsel representing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dr.Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3'd respondents herein and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record. The facts germane for filing of the present criminal revision case, succinctly, are that the marriage of the petitioner-husband and the 2M respondent-wife was performed on 28.01.2007 and at the time of marriage the parents of the 2M respondent gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and presented one gold ring, bracelet, household articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/- and since the beginning of the marriage the petitioner herein demanded additional dowry and tortured the 2M respondent and harassed and neglected her without providing proper food and clothes. On 28.07.2009, she was finally necked out by the respendents. TbeJd respondent along with her minor son took

shelter in her parents house' Though the petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain the 2nd and 3d respondenB' he neglected to maintain' Hence the 2nd respondent-wife filed M'C'No'28 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Khammam which was partly allowed' The petitioner herein, being the respondent before the trial Court' filed counter affidavit, while admitting the factum of marriage' inter alia' contended that the 2d respondent is earning only Rs'20'000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month as lecturer in a college and also getting a monthly rent of Rs.

Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 07-11-2017 passed by the , the Present criminal revision learned Family Court Judge, at Khammam case is filed by the petitioner-husband'

J The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 2d respondent has left the company of petitioner herself by taking all ttrc gold ornaments, silver articles and clothes. The petitioner filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, but the 2d respondent did not turn up to join the petitioner. Further the 2d respondent is attending job at Khammam and earning Rs.20,OOO/- per month and she is having residential house consisting of G+2 and she is getting Rs'20,000/- per month as rents. Further the 2nd respondent was granted Rs.1,000/- towards residential accommodation and Rs'2,000/- to each petitioner towards maintenance in the D.V.C. filed by the 2nd respondent and hence there is no cause of action for filing maintenance case.

However, the trial Court held that the 2d respondent herein failed to prove that the petitioner harassed the respondents and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty with a demand of additional dowry and that she was necked out by the respondent. Hence the 2d respondent is not entitled for maintenance from the petitioner. Since the 3'd respondent is the son of petitioner and he is with 2d respondent and as he is not having any independent source of income, the petitioner has to provide maintenance to the 3'd respondent and therefore awarded Rs.10,000/- to the 3'd \- resfolrdent towards maintenance.

There is no dispute with regard to the matrimonial relationship of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The trial Court rightly held that the 2nd respondent did not turn up even after filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner and that the 2d respondent is having sufficient means to maintain herself. Instead of seftling the disputes be8veen them, the 2d respondent resorted to file, M.C., D.V.C., and other criminal cases against the petitioner and dragged the matrimonial issue on to the roads. Therefore, the trial Court did not award any maintenance to the 2nd respondent, but the petitioner is bound to pay maintenance to his son who is in the hands of 2M respondent.

10 In that view of the matter, the trial Court below has rightly held that the 2d respondent herein is not entitled for maintenance but the 3'd respondent being son of the petitioner is entitled for maintenance from the petitioner. I see no ground much less valid ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and accordingly this criminal revision case does not deserve merit consideration. 11 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

-7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case shall also stand dismissed.

SD/-T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District Judge, at Khammam' One CC to SRl. D V Chalapathi Rao Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy Advocate [OPUC]. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies.

tourl YJR MY

HIGH COURT DATED:3011012023 R 'iH !: .r: l,l c'

( o 17 rEB ?il4

ORDER

* al * €SPATCHg0 CRLRC.No.3278 of 2017 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL RC