Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 856

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
RENUKA YARA, J.
Sri Naga Vamsi Krishna Jasti - Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ghanta V. Nalini Kumari & others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No. 374 of 2025
Decided On : 04-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ch. Venu Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Madhu Sudhan Rao, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

Arrears of maintenance under Section 125(3) must be sought within one year; failure to do so precludes enforcement, and maintenance claims cannot be sought via criminal proceedings designated for civil disputes. The court also examined the income of the petitioner and found it impacts claims for maintenance.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 125(3) - Revision petition regarding arrears of maintenance and shared household rights - The Magistrate erred in ordering arrest for non-payment of maintenance without a valid application, as arrears claimed were beyond the one-year limit for recovery. The respondent’s claims of the petitioner being self-sufficient and the failure to seek timely arrears were significant. The impugned order was found to violate procedural norms and thus set aside. (Paras 8, 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a Domestic Violence Case against her husband seeking shared household and maintenance. The Magistrate ordered payment of rent and maintenance, but the husband challenged the enforcement of these orders citing his wife's financial independence.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the ordering of arrest for maintenance arrears was improper as the application did not comply with the requirement to seek arrears within one year. The law regarding maintenance arrears was misapplied, leading to the set aside of the earlier order.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the procedural validity of issuing arrest for maintenance arrears and assessing the financial status of the petitioner in relation to her entitlement to maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the maintenance obligation arises only within a specified time frame, and failure to comply with these timelines limits the remedy available to the petitioner, confirming also the irrelevance of the petitioner’s income and assets regarding entitlement to shared household.

Result: Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background on maintenance orders and compliance (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments by respondent on arrears and application scope (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. further contentions on income and maintenance entitlement (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. legal precedents cited regarding jurisdiction and orders (Para 13 , 14)
6. discussion on civil vs criminal nature of maintenance proceedings (Para 15 , 16)
7. court's reasoning on validity of orders and statutory compliance (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. legal findings on maintainability and procedural errors (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
9. final ruling and order (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER:

RENUKA YARA, J.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.S’) by the revision petitioner/respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.No.471 of 2024 in D.V.C.No.11 of 2016.

2. Heard Mr. Ch. Venu Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. B. Madhu Sudhan Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State.

3. The parties are addressed as they are addressed in Crl.M.P and D.V.C. The revision petitioner herein is referred as ‘respondent No.1’ and respondent No.1 herein is referred as ‘petitioner’.

4. The petitioner filed DVC case against her husband respondent No.1/revision petitioner and mother-in-law vide DVC No.11 of 2016 seeking shared household and interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate vide order in Crl.M.P.No.1249 of 2016 dated 26.10.2017 provided shared household to the petitioner and their child in the house of her husband or to pay monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- on or before 5^th of every succeeding month. Further, vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2017, dated 26.10.2017, the husband/ respondent No.1 was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to minor daughter on or before 5^th of every succeeding month. Currently, the DVC is coming for cross examination of PW2.

5. The respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.2768 of 2019 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 18.10.2019 passed against him and the same was ordered on 13.12.2019 subject to the condition that respondent No.1 would pay arrears of maintenance of Rs.7,35,000/- as ordered in Crl.M.P.Nos.1249 of 2016 and 483 of 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1520 and 1521 of 2021 wherein the Court ordered payment of Rs.8,25,000/- and Rs.7,20,000/- vide order dated 03.04.2024. However, said order was not complied by respondent No.1. In the circumstances, the above petition under revision is filed under Order XV-A r/w Section 151 of CPC to direct respondent No.1 to pay arrears of Rs.14,95,000/-, failing which, the defence evidence be struck off.

6. Due to pending arrears, the counsel for petitioner informed that respondent No.1 cannot proceed with cross examination of PW2 by relying upon judgment of Kerala High court in case of Neethu v. Trijo Joseph , {2022 SCC OnLine Ker 3280} : 2022 Supreme(Ker) 355 . A memo was filed on 16.04.2024 showing payment of only Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner out of arrears of Rs.15,45,000/- payable. Therefore, there is objection to cross examination of PW2 by the petitioner.

7. In said petition, respondent No.1 opposed the relief sought on the ground that the undisputed arrears are paid up to date and that in cross examination of PW1 (petitioner), she admitted that she is not aware of residential orders passed by the Court but has been claiming rental amount for providing shared household. It is pleaded that the petitioner left residence at Hyderabad and living at Nellore for better employment and subsequently, residing at Guntur to pursue her employment as Senior Resident in Ramesh Multi Specialty Hospital, Guntur by drawing salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The petitioner admitted t