Telangana High Court
Mohd Akram Uddin Khan, Hyd., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp Anr., on 6 December, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1290 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-appellant- husband aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2016 passed in DVC Appeal No.864 of 2015 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad confirming the orders dated 01.10.2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No.747 of 2015 in DVC No.84 of 2014 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
3. The petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and filed Crl.M.P. No.747 of 2015 seeking relief of interim maintenance to her and to her two children. As per the said petition, the petitioner-wife married the respondent-husband (revision petitioner herein) on 06.02.2011 as per Muslim rites and customs and her parents presented Jahez articles Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 worth Rs.5,00,000/- and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.3,00,000/-. They were blessed with two children. The children were aged about 2 years and one month respectively, by the date of filing the petition in the year 2015. For the past two and half years, her husband and his family members were harassing her demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent-husband was working in Dubai by leaving her at her in-laws house. Her in-laws treated her with cruelty, beat her mercilessly and threatened to perform second marriage to the respondent-husband. The respondent-husband was working in Dubai and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Apart from that, he owned properties and was getting rents. One of her sons was suffering with kidney problem and she required huge amount for his treatment and sought interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month.
4. The respondent-husband (revision petitioner) filed counter contending that due to the disobedience and threatening attitude of the petitioner-wife, he pronounced irrevocable divorce on 05.05.2014 as per the Muslim Personal Law and deposited Rs.10,000/- towards her maintenance during Iddath period and discharged pre and post divorce liability. The A.P. State Waqf Board had also issued divorce Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 certificate dated 05.06.2014 to that effect. The factum of divorce was communicated to the petitioner-wife on 06.06.2014, but the said notice was returned to the office of the Qazaith with an endorsement 'unclaimed'. Thereafter, a paper publication was made in Munsif Daily on 13.06.2014 and 14.06.2014. After knowing the fact of divorce, the petitioner lodged the complaint before the Police, Pahadi Shareef with false and frivolous allegations with an ulterior motive to extract money from him. The said case was filed after giving divorce. 4.1. The respondent further submitted that he was jobless due to the continuous mental torture from the petitioner-wife and her family members. The petitioner was having her own house and she was running a beauty parlour under the name and style of "Fatima Beauty Parlour" at Qazipura, Hyderabad and was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Apart from that, she was also taking home tuitions and getting monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. As such, the total income of the petitioner was Rs.20,000/- per month. She was also having movable and immovable properties in Qazipura, Hyderabad and Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District and was getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner-wife was having sufficient income to Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 maintain herself and her minor children. There was no jural relationship existing between the petitioner-wife and the respondent- husband and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, on considering the contentions of both the parties, as the respondent- husband was contending that he pronounced talaq and the petitioner- wife was denying that the same was intimated to her and the said issue could not be decided at the stage of granting interim maintenance and as per the settled principles of law, even a divorced Muslim woman was entitled for maintenance under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, as well as Criminal Procedure Code and since the marriage between the parties and birth of children was not disputed, observed that the respondent-husband was under obligation to provide maintenance to the petitioner-wife and the children till the disposal of the DVC.
6. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad also observed that except oral submissions, both the parties had not filed any documents in support of their plea with regard to the financial status or income of the others and as the petitioner-wife filed the Dr.GRR,J 5 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 medical record of her son, aged below one year, showing that he was suffering from kidney disease and as he required medical treatment, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife from the date of the order.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-husband preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide DVC Appeal No.864 of 2015 and vide order dated 16.04.2016, confirmed the order passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.
8. Aggrieved further, the respondent-husband preferred this revision contending that the learned Sessions Judge erred in confirming the order of the Magistrate in awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife from the date of the order inspite of the fact that the divorce between the parties had already taken place on 05.05.2014. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the petitioner-wife filed a case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was registered as Crime No.324 of 2014, in which the passport of the respondent-husband was seized, due to which he could not go Dr.GRR,J 6 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 back to Dubai where he was working as a result of which he became jobless. In the absence of any positive evidence that the respondent- husband (revision petitioner herein) was employed, the courts below ought not to have ordered Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance. The courts below failed to see that the divorced wife was running a beauty parlour and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and she was also giving home tuitions and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, and was owning immovable properties at Qazipura and Osman Nagar, Balapur and was getting rental income of Rs.10,000/- per month and that she was self sufficient and would not require any maintenance. The petitioner was jobless and was unable to maintain himself and prayed to allow the revision.
9. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-husband (revision petitioner herein) and the petitioner-wife (2nd respondent herein).
10. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that the respondent-husband after returning to India in the year 2014 was now practicing as an Advocate. He was paying Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife as per the order of this Court on 03.06.2016. He was now remarried in the year 2017 and was having two daughters Dr.GRR,J 7 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 with his second wife, aged about 4 ½ year and 5 months old respectively and prayed to consider the changed circumstances.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner had two sons; one boy aged about 10 years studying 6th class and another boy aged about 8 years studying 3rd class. One of the sons was suffering with kidney problem. There was no illegality in the orders of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and prayed to confirm the same.
12. Perused the record. This criminal revision case is filed against the interim orders of maintenance awarded in DVC 84 of 2014 granting Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner-wife (2nd respondent herein) from the date of the order. The contention of the respondent- husband was that he pronounced talaq to the petitioner-wife and deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards her maintenance during the Iddath period and he was not entitled to discharge any other liability. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court rightly observed that even a divorced Muslim woman was entitled for maintenance and there was no pleading from the respondent-husband (revision petitioner herein) that the petitioner-wife got remarried after Dr.GRR,J 8 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 she was divorced by him and no documentary evidence was filed by both the parties in proof of their earnings, properties and their financial status and considering the requirements of the petitioner-wife and her children, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month during the pendency of the DVC. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders of the courts below. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband that the respondent-husband is now a practicing Advocate, the award of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is not considered as on higher side since he is having a duty to maintain even the divorced wife and children. The changed circumstances, if any, after his re- marriage or with regard to the financial status of the petitioner-wife, can be brought to the notice of the trial court by filing necessary documentary proof in the said regard. This criminal revision case is found to be devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 16.04.2016 passed in DVC Appeal No.864 of 2015 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the appellate court confirmed the order dated 01.10.2015 Dr.GRR,J 9 Crl.RC No.1230 of 2016 passed in Crl.M.P. No.747 of 2015 in DVC No.84 of 2014 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife (2nd respondent herein).
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 06, 2022 KTL