Telangana High Court
Asghar Mohiuddin Junaid vs The State Of Telangana on 28 March, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.324 OF 2020
ALONG WITH I.A. No. 2 OF 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Hari Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
2. This Revision is filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2019 passed in M.C. No.37 of 2015 by the learned Family Court - cum - Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Whereas, I.A. No.2 of 2020 is filed seeking a direction to send blood samples of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein for DNA Test
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are wife and children of the petitioner herein. They filed a petition under Section - 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No.37 of 2015 seeking maintenance against the petitioner herein. The learned Judge, Family Court vide order dated 09.11.2019 allowed the said petition in part awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent No.2 herein and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent Nos.3 to 5 each from the date of said order till they attain majority. The learned Judge 2 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.324 of 2020 had also directed the petitioner herein to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month by depositing the same in the bank account of respondent No.2 herein. The Court below had considered the evidence, both oral and documentary including the depositions of PWs.1 to 3 and RW.1 and Exs.R1 to R3. There is a finding that though it is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein pronounced divorce to respondent No.2 herein, but even as divorced wife is entitled for maintenance until she remarries. The learned Judge has also considered the minimum necessities / expenses of respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein including the rent etc. The learned Judge has also considered the employment and pay particulars of the petitioner herein, and also the bank balance of Rs.87,33,459/- as on 01.12.2016. He is also getting rents. Considering all the said aspects, the learned Judge has awarded the aforesaid amounts to respondent Nos.2 to 5 towards maintenance.
4. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein has already given divorce to respondent No.2 and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. There is no dispute that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are children of the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein. They are minors and students. It is the duty 3 KL,J Crl.R.C. No.324 of 2020 of the petitioner being father to maintain them. It is also settled law that a divorced woman is entitled for maintenance until she remarries. Though the petitioner herein contended that he has given divorce to respondent No.2, he failed to prove that she remarried after divorce.
5. As stated above, the learned Judge having considered the employment, pay particulars and the bank balance and also the fact that the petitioner herein is getting rents, awarded an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month to respondent No.2 herein, while Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent Nos.3 to 5 each towards maintenance. The impugned order is a reasoned and well founded and there is no error in it. The petitioner herein failed to make out any ground to interfere with the said order.
6. It is interesting to note that the petitioner herein had filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.2 of 2020 in the present revision seeking a direction to send blood samples of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein for DNA Test on the ground that respondent No.2 herself told him that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not born through him. On the said ground, he filed the said petition. The present revision is filed under Sections - 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. 4
KL,J Crl.R.C. No.324 of 2020 In a revision, this Court has to examine as to the correctness, legality or proprietary of any finding of the Court below in the impugned order. An application filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained and, therefore, the said I.A. is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the above discussion, I.A. No.2 of 2020 as well as the present Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 28th March, 2022 Mgr