The court established that interim maintenance must sufficiently cover the basic needs of dependents, emphasizing the welfare of minors while awaiting the resolution of the main case.

ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri P. Bosu Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri V. Apparao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the revision petitioner/respondent aggrieved by the order of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2024 in M.C.No.3 of 2024, dated 26.03.2025, wherein, the respondent Nos.2 and 3/petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition pending disposal of the main case and to pay arrears of maintenance within two months from the date of order.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of revision petitioner who was married as per Hindu rites and customs to respondent No.2 on 22.03.2023 at Pedda Amberpet, Hayat Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The marriage between the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 is love marriage. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 was born out of wedlock on 19.11.2023. After marriage, according to respondent No.2, the revision petitioner was spending a lavish life and spent all the money given by her parents at the time of marriage and then, there was demand for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. After the birth of respondent No.3, the said amount was given and the same was spent for his lavish needs. Again, there was harassment for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and she was necked out of the house culminating in filing of case in Crime No.38 of 2023 for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent No.2 was dependent on her parents to raise respondent No.3 and therefore, sought maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. According to respondent No.2, the revision petitioner was earning Rs.50,000/- per month from business, Rs.20,000/- from rents and Rs.20,000/- by raising vegetables and commercial crops. Therefore, the respondent No.2 had sufficient means to provide the maintenance. Whereas the case of the revision petitioner is that no amounts were given to him at the time of marriage. After marriage, the respondent No.2 was diagnosed with Appendicitis wherein the revision petitioner had spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards her treatment. The respondent No.2 is a B.Com graduate, she is working with MNC from home and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Whereas the revision petitioner is doing a small job having studied only up to Intermediate. The revision petitioner is a Site surveyor in Delight Interiors earning sum of Rs.16,500/- per month. He does not have any assets and he pays monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- per month for their house. The respondent No.2 has agricultural land of one acre in her name at Sy.No.54/AA/2/2 in Veltur Village where she is raising crops and vegetables has agricultural income. The revision petitioner pleaded that at the request of respondent No.2, he dropped her at her house and on her own demand all her gold ornaments are given to her. The respondent No.2 abused him in vulgar language and threatened him with suicide if he does not come to her parents’ house and when the revision petitioner went to the house of respondent No.2, he was beaten up due to which he was admitted in hospital. The revision petitioner pleaded that respondent No.2 stayed with him only for three weeks and harassed him and left the matrimonial house on her own accord and therefore, not entitled to maintenance.

5. Upon examining the case of both the parties, the learned Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to pay arrears of maintenance within two months. Aggrieved by the said order, the present