THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.170 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

order dated 19.02.2024 passed in M.C.No.493 of 2019 by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner, filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.20,000/- for herself and Rs.10,000/- for her minor son). Their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2015 in Hyderabad as an arranged marriage. She alleged that post-marriage, she was subjected to cruel treatment and dowry harassment by the petitioner and his family. Initial dowry and gifts at the time of marriage included Rs.8,00,000/-, gold jewellery (15 tulas, of which 5 were given to the husband), and household items. Despite this, the family of the petitioner allegedly demanded an additional Rs.4,00,000/- in dowry, which her

father reluctantly paid. Later, they demanded a further Rs.10,00,000/-, leading to persistent harassment and physical abuse, even during her pregnancy.

3. She was sent to her parental home during her ninth month of pregnancy, following customary practice, and gave birth to a baby boy on 07.12.2016. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner refused to take her back unless the additional dowry was paid. An ex-parte divorce decree was obtained by the petitioner on 15.07.2019, which she discovered only during a visit to his residence on 17.11.2019. By that time, he had remarried and had a daughter. The wife also filed a criminal complaint under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The Petitioner, a software engineer at Zen 3 Solutions earning around Rs.50,000/- per month, denied the allegations, stating instead that the respondent deserted him without reason, and cited the financial burden of supporting his aged and ailing parents, his father suffering from heart conditions and his mother undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer. He also claimed to be from a modest middle-class background and stated he had additional responsibilities after remarriage.

5. During the proceedings, both parties submitted details of their assets and liabilities. The wife was examined as PW-1 and produced supporting witnesses and documents. The husband was examined as RW-1. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court partly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to their son, effective from the date of the order. The trial Court also directed to respondent No.1 to open a nationalized bank account for receiving the maintenance, which was to be deposited by the 10^th of every month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband filed the present criminal revision case.

6. Heard Sri G. Mahesh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri G. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary and not based on material evidence on record, but rather on presumptions and conjectures and that the trial Court failed to appreciate the categorical admission of the respondent that she is a qualified Mechanical Engineer who was employed both prior to and after the marriage. He further submitted that despite being separated since 2016, the respondent made no effort to join the society of the petitioner and only initiated proceedings in M.C.No.493 of 2019 and filed FIR.No.607 of 2020 upon learning that the petitioner intended to remarry, after the dissolution of their marriage in O.P.No.125 of 2018 vide order dated 15.07.2019, indicating clear mala fides and an abuse of judicial process. He further submitted that the respondent, d