THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.341, 342 and 355 of

2024

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in all the Criminal Revision Cases is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of common order.

2. The Criminal Revision Case Nos.341, 342 and 355 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the common judgment dated 13.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.319 of 2012 and 382 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, “the appellate Court”).

3. Heard Mr. Anand, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State in Criminal Revision Case No.355 of

2024.

4. Heard Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel representing Mr. B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 State in Criminal Revision Case Nos.341 and

342 of 2024.

For the sake of convenience, the facts in Crl.R.Ċ.No.355 of

2024 are discussed as hereunder:-

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.1 married each other on 20.06.2003 at Manna Church, Suryapet, Nalgonda District as per christian rites. They were blessed with two children out of their wedlock. It was stated that after marriage, the petitioner took her to the house of another lady namely Chandrakala, who was a widow and she had to live along with that lady under the same roof. It was further stated that the widow lady had a son who was suffering from muscular dystrophy and he was unable to move. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 had to perform all the house hold activities and thus, the disputes cropped up between the couple. After some time, the petitioner neglected respondent No.1 and her children. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed maintenance case.

6. The learned Judge, Family Court vide order dated 26.09.2006 in M.C.No.72 of 2005 granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 and her children payable by the petitioner. However, the petitioner was irregular in payment of maintenance amount and failed to comply the said order. It was stated that the petitioner filed divorce O.P.No.369 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, which made her life miserable. It is alleged that the petitioner had illicit intimacy with other woman and drove respondent No.1 from the matrimonial home.

Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.1 filed D.V.C.

7. Vide judgment dated 15.06.2012 in D.V.C.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, respondent No.1 was granted protection order, residential order, maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to herself and her children, permanent maintenance of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved thereby, appeals were preferred by both the parties.

8. The appellate Court vide common judgment dated 13.03.2015 in Criminal Appeal Nos.319 of 2012 and 382 of 2013 modified the judgment passed by the trial Court and granted protection order, maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.1 and her two children, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and set aside the relief pertaining to payment of permanent maintenance of Rs.30,00,000/-. Assailing the same, the present Revision.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without appreciating the material available on record in proper perspective and without taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner. He further stated that the quantum of compensation and permanent maintenance granted were huge and exhorbitant. Therefore, seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly and appropriately passed their respective judgments and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, s