THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10315 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2023 passed by the learned I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in M.P. No. 51 of 2022 in M.C. No. 163 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking interim maintenance against respondent No. 1 was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri P.Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.K.Jamali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri M.Vivekananda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 02.06.2005. Subsequently, marital disputes arose between them, and at the instance of respondent No.1, the petitioner started living separately. The petitioner filed M.C. No.163 of 2022 seeking monthly maintenance of ₹40,000/- for herself and ₹30,000/- for petitioner No.1 therein, from the date of the petition, along with costs. Along with the said M.C. No.163 of 2022, the petitioner also filed M.P. No.51 of 2022 seeking interim maintenance of ₹60,000/- per month for herself and petitioner No.1 therein. The petitioner has no means to maintain herself or petitioner No.1 in M.C.No.163 of 2022. Respondent No.1 is working as a Valuation Officer and Team Leader at Varun Motors, earning a monthly salary of ₹1,50,000/-, besides receiving rental income of over ₹50,000/- per month from joint immovable properties. The learned Family Court, without properly considering the averments made in support of the application, dismissed the same solely on the basis of the allegations in the counter affidavit, holding that the petitioner herself has left the matrimonial home and was living with her paternal uncle instead of her parents. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to grant of interim maintenance as sought in M.P.

No.51 of 2022 in M.C. No.163 of 2022.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the learned Family Court, after taking into consideration the averments made in the petition as well as the counter, and after hearing both parties, passed the impugned order by assigning cogent reasons. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order, and the present Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 02.06.2005, and thereafter matrimonial disputes arose between them. Even according to the parties, the petitioner and respondent No.1 are living separately. The petitioner, along with her daughter, filed M.C. No.163 of 2022 invoking the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from respondent No.1 for a sum of ₹70,000/- per month from the date of filing of the M.C. Along with the said M.C., they filed M.P. No.51 of 2022 under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of ₹60,000/- per month from the date of the petition till the disposal of the main M.C.

6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that neither of the parties filed any documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned Family Court, without taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and by merely relying on the averments made by respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit, dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is residing with her paternal uncle and not in the house of her parents.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated

08.0