IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.960 of 2024 DATE: 01.12.2025 BETWEEN:

Mr. Preetam Powaku …..petitioner/accused And State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, TS High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and others …..Respondents/complainant

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2022 in DVC.No.16 of 2022 by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/wife had married the petitioner/husband on 27.07.2017 and two daughters were born from the wedlock, but respondent No.2 alleged that she was subjected to domestic violence and was ultimately driven out of the house, which led her to seek interim maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- per month for herself and the two minor children. The petitioner admitted the marital relationship but denied all allegations of domestic violence, contended that respondent No.2 was capable of maintaining herself as she allegedly ran a consultancy, and further claimed that the petitioner had already been paying school fees, weekly expenses and other amounts for the children; he also asserted that his employment had ended due to the complaints of respondent No.2 and that he presently earned only Rs.20,000/- as an independent consultant. Upon considering the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the absence of supporting material from both sides, the children’s medical needs, the petitioner’s previous high salary and his failure to disclose his true income, the trial Court drew an adverse inference against him and held that although respondent No.2 was educated, her earning capacity alone did not disentitle her to maintenance, however, the amount claimed was found to be exorbitant. Consequently, the trial Court partly allowed and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the two children towards interim maintenance from the date of the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision case.

3. Heard Sri N. Vinesh Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent - State and Sri Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the appellate order was contrary to law and the evidence on record, particularly the petitioner’s Income Tax Return for 2023–24 showing an annual income of only Rs.3,38,940/-, which made the award of Rs.35,000/- per month wholly impracticable. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate the limited income of the petitioner, his unemployment caused by the respondent- wife’s repeated complaints to his employers, and the consequent disruption of his career and mental well-being. He contended that respondent No.2 had sabotaged the professional prospects of the petitioner and could not now rely on his past earnings to claim higher maintenance and that the respondent had already been granted Rs.15,000/- per month in earlier proceedings, which the appellate Court ignored, and that maintenance must be proportionate to the actual income of the husband. He further contended that the petitioner had even obtained an injunction restraining the respondent from defaming him professionally and submitted that the respondent, being well-educated and previously employed, was capable of earning. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the impugned order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 had filed an application seeking interim maintenance for herself and her two minor daughters, who required regular medication