THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

quash the order dated 20.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.152 of 2024 in M.C. No.230 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Family

Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Notice sent to the respondent No.2 was returned with an

endorsement that no such person is in the given address and the address given is very much the same as given in the Maintenance

Case. Hence, it is deemed to be served.

4. The parties hereinafter are referred as they arrayed before

the trial court for the sake of convenience.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has

submitted that the amount of interim maintenance granted to the petitioner No.1-wife is very high and that the respondent-husband, who is a private employee cannot pay that amount. He further

submitted that in fact the respondent has lost his job and has not been able to maintain himself and therefore, he prayed to quash the orders dated 20.06.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.152 of 2024 on the file of Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

6. Perused the record.

7. A perusal of the record would disclose that the petitioner No.1 before the trial court is one Solipuram @ Padumati Rohitha and petitioner No.2 is Solipuam Naga Varshini, who are the wife and daughter of the respondent. It is averred by the petitioner No.1 before the trial court that they hail from a poor family and since the date of her separation from her husband, she is facing a lot of financial problems and is unable to maintain herself and the child. It is her case that the respondent neglected her inspite of having sufficient means. It is her case that the respondent is a private employee earning Rs.60,000/- per month and also is having properties in his name.

8. The respondent-husband, on the other hand, has denied the averments in his counter and that he is ready to take the petitioners into his society and he has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He further submitted that he is working as PR Executive in Yashoda Hospitals and earning Rs.19,196/- per month and that when the petitioner No.1 left his society on her own, she is not entitled to any maintenance. Thus, both the parties raised allegations against each other. The petitioner No.1-wife says that the respondent is earning Rs.60,000/- per month while the respondent contends that he is earning Rs.19,196/- per month. The said facts can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. As far as the interim maintenance is concerned, the point that falls for consideration is that the petitioner No.1-wife is living separately from the respondent- husband. Further, the minor child aged 2 years is also living with the petitioner No.1. Thus, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 need some amount to maintain themselves and the respondent being the husband of the petitioner No.1 cannot ignore the said responsibility. As per today’s cost of living and keeping in view the admitted fact that the respondent-husband is working as PR Executive in the Cardiology Department of Yashoda Hospitals, the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as awarded by the trial court, appears to be well justified and the order passed by the trial court needs no interference.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.191 of 2022 in MC No.36 of 2022 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 07, 2025 KTL