THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.487 and 1037 of 2019

ORDER:

The Criminal Revision Case No.487 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the Judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal (DVC.No.1256 of 2017) on the file of learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

2. The Criminal Revision Case.No.1037 is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the Orders in M.C.No.57 on the file of I Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

4. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Adesh Varma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Jithender Rao Veermalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner namely Rajeshwar Rao married Krishna Kumari on 05.11.2008 according to the Hindu Customs and subsequently, some disputes arose between them and both of them got separated and that the Krishna Kumari has filed several cases, a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, Maintenance Case is filed seeking maintenance for herself and her children and a case under DVC Act, and further has filed an interim maintenance application in the DVC case and also in the maintenance case. Sri Rajeshwar Rao is aggrieved by the orders passed in MC.No.57 of 2014 and DVC (Criminal Appeal No.1256 of 2017). He further submitted before the trial Court that he had to look after his old aged parents, who are suffering with several health problems.

6. By considering the evidence on record in DVC and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court has granted Rs.7,000/- per month towards maintenance i.e., Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner No.1 i.e., wife/Krishna Kumari and Rs.2000/- each to the children. In MC.No.57 of 2014, a total amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.4,000/- to wife, Rs.3,000/- to each child) per month was awarded. Since the issues involved in both the cases i..e, both the applications are towards seeking maintenance of Krishna Kumari and her children, they are answered together.

7. The learned counsel for revision petitioner has argued that, the respondent herein is a Post Graduate and has filed number of cases against the petitioner herein, one such case is DVC, there are several other cases, one MC and one FCOP are also pending between the parties. He further submitted that though she has earning capacity, she is not working and is claiming maintenance just to harass the petitioner herein. He further contended that the respondent herein has suppressed the earlier MC orders dated 20.11.2017 passed by the trial Court and thus, she is not entitled to any relief in the DVC proceedings. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court awarding a maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife and Rs.2,000/- each to the two children, in total Rs.7,000/- awarded by the trial Court in the DVC. Thus, the contention of the revision petitioner is that his wife has concealed the orders passed by the trial Court and has obtained the orders in DVC. He further argued that Krishna Kumari has filed E.P.No.8 of 2018 seeking execution of the decree obtained in restitution of conjugal rights and that for non- compliance of the said orders, the trial Court has ordered to attach the salary of the husband @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the month of November 2018 and a salary attachment warrant has been issued. He therefore, submitted that altogether the wife of the petitioner is being paid Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of RCR, Rs.7,000/- in DVC and Rs.10,000/- in MC, in all she is getting an amount of Rs.27,000/-, with all these orders put together. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders in DVC vide his Crl.RC.No.487 and further prayed to set aside the orders in MC in his Crl.R.C.No.1037 of 2019.

8. On the other hand, t