THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.218 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the order dated 29.10.2024 in M.C.No.39 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri (for short “trial Court”).

2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the Maintenance Case before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri G.Jonathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that maintenance can be granted if the husband has neglected the wife and if she cannot maintain herself but in the present case the husband has not neglected the wife and that she left the matrimonial house on her own and it is an admitted fact that she is working woman and is earning a good amount to maintain herself, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in granting the maintenance in favour of the wife. He further submitted that a petition was filed vide Crl.M.P.No.73 of 2017 in M.C.No.39 of 2017 for interim maintenance, which was dismissed but no revision is preferred against the said orders. The trial Court failed to appreciate the said fact and has granted Rs.25,000/- per month in the present maintenance case. He further argued that a wrong affidavit is filed by the petitioner before the trial Court and that when she has left the society of the husband on her own, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. She worked in multinational companies and is earning lumpsum salaries and now she is working in a private company and that the respondent-husband is only a graduate and is doing a small job. He further argued that the petitioner-wife has 55% disability and she is entitled to Rs.4,000/- per month towards Disability Pension Scheme and she also has the facilities of reservation under Physically Handicapped Category in the jobs, therefore, she has plenty of opportunities and further, he submitted that the respondent- husband has given Rs.5 Lakhs to the petitioner-wife and therefore, further amounts need not be granted to the petitioner-wife. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the trial Court has given a very reasoned order granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner-wife and that the respondent-husband is earning more than Rs.1 Lakh per month and that he has filed a false affidavit before the trial Court and he has also some immovable assets and in fact the maintenance of Rs.1 Lakh can be granted in favour of the petitioner-wife who is a disabled lady and she is still in job hunt as she lost her earlier job.

6. Perused the record.

7. The record reveals that the petitioner before the trial Court is a physically handicapped lady and that after disclosing everything about her disability and her qualification that she has completed MCA and also that she was working in a software company, the family members of the respondent agreed for the alliance and the marriage was performed and after the marriage they started harassing her. The qualification of the respondent was revealed as B-Com, C.A., and ICWA (Inter), and that he was working at Chennai and drawing a salary of Rs.45,000/- per month prior to the marriage. It is further revealed from the record that after she joined the society of her husband at Chennai, there were many incidents happened, her in-laws went there and resided with them, initially they have instigated the respondent and that the respondent used to beat her indiscriminately with hand and TV remote, several other incidents of harassment were also narrated. That they further harassed to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs for purchasing a car. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner have given