THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

COMMON ORDER:

Since a common issue arises in both the criminal petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way of this common order.

2. Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to the extent of granting Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and consequently, prayed to enhance the same from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month.

3. Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/husband seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 355 of 2024.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month pending disposal of M.C.No.264 of 2023. She claimed that she was married to the respondent on 10.02.1989 and they had three daughters during their wedlock. She alleged that the respondent neglected his responsibilities, entered into a second marriage with one Sunitha in December 2003 after fraudulently obtaining an ex parte divorce decree, and failed to support her and their daughters. She further stated that she had been maintaining herself and her daughters with the support of her parents and brothers and incurred substantial expenses towards education, marriage, and medical treatment. She also disclosed filing D.V.C.No.20 of 2016, in which she was granted various reliefs including maintenance and compensation, and stated that the respondent had only been paying Rs.23,000/- per month pursuant to the modified order of the appellate Court.

6. On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting the marriage and paternity, opposed the petition contending that he was ousted from the matrimonial home in the year 1999 and that the conduct of the petitioner was abusive and aggressive. He submitted that he had obtained a divorce decree which was later set aside, and his subsequent appeal and SLP were dismissed. He claimed to have married Sunitha only after the ex parte divorce decree and stated that he was maintaining two children from his second marriage. He further stated that the petitioner suppressed the earlier DVC proceedings and filed the M.C. to harass him. He stated that he was already paying Rs.23,000/- per month as per the DVC appellate order and could not afford to pay additional maintenance due to financial obligations.

7. Upon hearing both sides and examining the affidavits of assets and liabilities, bank statements, and other evidence, the trial Court held that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier DVC order at the time of filing the petition and that she was already receiving Rs.23,000/- per month. The trial Court further observed that the maintenance amount sought was exorbitant and considering the financial capacity of the respondent, the trial Court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent to pay an additional Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition, over and above the amount already being paid, and to clear arrears within three months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 to enhance the amount Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and the respondent filed Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023.

8. Heard Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 and the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 as well as Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 and for respondent in Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 an