THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated

25.04..2025 passed in MC No.148 of 2023 by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri P.M. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R.K. Gargeya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor respondent No.2-State.

3. Learned counsel for the quash petitioner-husband has submitted that this is the second petition filed by the respondent No.1-wife seeking maintenance and that it is not maintainable. In case of any enhancement, the respondent No.1-wife is supposed to file for enhancement of maintenance amount, but not a fresh application. He, thus, contended that the petition needs to be dismissed, but the trial court has erroneously granted maintenance in this case. He, further submitted that there was a compromise memo during the pendency of maintenance case vide MC No.72 of 2007 which was entered on 16.04.2015 and as per the terms and conditions of the said compromise, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to the respondent No.1-wife in the MC and that even after the compromise, the respondent No.1-wife has violated the said terms and had not stayed together with the quash petitioner-husband. Therefore, he further submitted that the wife of the petitioner herein has neglected the family and thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He further submitted that a property was given to the wife by her father-in-law through a will deed to look after the welfare of the grandchild i.e. the son born to the petitioner herein and the respondent No.1-wife. Therefore, there is no necessity for the respondent No.1-wife to claim further maintenance. However, this is the second maintenance application which is not maintainable, and hence, prayed to set aside the orders of the trial court granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-wife, on the other hand, submitted that the original maintenance case was filed in 1992 and enhancement was made in 2007 and in 2015 a joint compromise memo was filed and as per the terms of the compromise, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid to meet the educational needs of the child and that another term under the compromise was that both of them should stay together. But, the said condition could not be complied with and both the parties could not live together and she is living separately, the respondent No.1-wife needs maintenance and that she is neglected by both her husband and son. He, further submitted that she is a helpless woman and thus, has filed maintenance case and also a petition seeking interim maintenance which was allowed by the trial court based on sound reasoning. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition by upholding the orders of the trial court.

5. Perused the record.

6. The present case is the second maintenance application vide MC No.148 of 2023. Earlier, MC No.22 of 1992 was filed before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, an amount of Rs.400/- was awarded to her and Rs.250/- to the child and later on it was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- in her favour on 1,000/- to her son from 29.03.2007 vide orders dated 01.02.2011 passed in Crl.M.P. No.32 of 2008 in MC No.72 of 2007. In the meantime, both the parties have entered into compromise and a joint compromise memo was filed. As per the terms of the joint compromise memo, both of them should live together under one roof and the respondent-husband has to pay Rs.5,00,000/- out of his retirement benefits towards the medial and surgery expenses of the petitioner-wife and as well as the educational expenses to the petitioner No.2 and the same was accepted by both the parties. But, however, the condition No.1 could not be complied and they could not stay together. However, as per the second condition, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid out of the retirement benefi