THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4938 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 21.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2024 in M.C.No.48 of 2023 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Muppu Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the respondent No.2 herein is the second wife and that she has exaggerated the expenses required for her maintenance and has filed the petition before the trial Court with ulterior motives of extracting money and harassing the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his other two children born out of first wife and that he also has to maintain himself and that his net salary is only Rs.50,000/- therefore, paying the maintenance of Rs.24,000/- to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would be too penurious on him and that the petitioner is already aggrieved by the harassment made by the respondent No.2 – wife by filing series of cases against him. He further argued that the respondent No.2 is living in the house which was bought by the petitioner and that she also has her own earnings and thus, prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court.

4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to appear in spite of service of notice.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that respondent No.2 herein is the legally wedded second wife of the petitioner herein and respondent No.3 is their son and that after the death of petitioner’s first wife, he married respondent No.2 and the two children born out of the first wedlock of the petitioner are aged 23 years and 20 years respectively studying degree and engineering. It is further borne out by record that the petitioner herein is working in Syndicate bank and was transferred to Guntur District and after shifting there, he used to come down to Hyderabad to look after the welfare of respondent Nos.2 and 3 but since one year he stopped coming to Hyderabad, also further stopped communication on phone.

7. It is her further case that while the petitioner was working at Hyderabad, the Syndicate Bank has sanctioned Rs.50 lakhs towards housing loan for construction of house on plot No.22 and that the parents of respondent No.2 have financed the petitioner for purchase of the said land and now respondent No.2 is paying the property tax, electricity bills and also paying the school fees of respondent No.3 for which she has been borrowing money from her parents and is depending on her parents for maintenance of herself and her son, therefore, she sought for an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. It is her case that the petitioner is earning a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month but still is neglecting respondent Nos.2 and 3.

8. The petitioner herein has also filed counter contesting the matter. He denied his earnings to be Rs.1,50,000/- and he stated that he has been paying housing loan and also he had taken certain top-up loans for constructing the house and that he is left with a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and expressed his inability to provide maintenance for his wife and son who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the trial Court has granted maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.12,000/- to respondent No.3, thus in all Rs.24,000/- per month was awarded by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed to quash the said orders.

10. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is the wife and respondent No.3 is the son of the petitioner herein. The salary slips filed by the petitioner disclose that he is working as Senior Manager in Canara Bank earning a salary of Rs.1,50,180/- and after making gross deductions of Rs.99,204/-, he is gettin