##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.985 of 2025

DATE: 23.03.2026

BETWEEN:

Mohd Javeed and another

…..petitioners

And

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad and another

…..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.76 of 2023 in M.C.No.270 of 2023 by the learned Judge, Additional Family

Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.985 of 2025

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, who is the mother of the petitioners, filed a petition under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from her two sons, contending that after the death of her husband, who was a driver in the Medical and Health Department and had acquired certain immovable properties and established a business in the name “A1 Star Earth Movers”, the respondents took over the business and are earning substantial income but neglected and harassed her and her unmarried daughter. Respondent No.2 further stated that though she receives a pension of about Rs.24,000/- per month, the same is insufficient for her livelihood, medical expenses, and other needs, and that the petitioners, despite having sufficient means, refused to maintain her. The petitioners denied the allegations, contending that respondent No.2 has sufficient means, including pension, savings, and properties left by their father, and that the petition was filed only to harass them. After hearing both sides and considering the affidavits of assets and liabilities, the trial Court held that sons have a legal obligation to maintain their mother and, pending disposal of the main maintenance case, granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each from

3 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.985 of 2025

petitioner No.1 and 2 (totalling Rs.20,000/- per month) to respondent No.2 from the date of petition, directing payment of arrears in three equal monthly instalments. Aggrieved by the said order granting interim maintenance, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the same. 3. Heard Sri Meesala Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri K. Sai Babu,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance is illegal, improper and contrary to the facts and law and that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record and erroneously allowed the petition in part though the 2^nd respondent–mother is having sufficient means to maintain herself. He further submitted that respondent No.2 is receiving a monthly government pension of about Rs.29,155/- , rental income of around Rs.20,000/- per month and also possesses bank savings and fixed deposits, which were

4 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.985 of 2025

suppressed before the Court. He contended that the unmarried daughter of respondent No.2 is well educated, working as a school teacher and earning income through salary and private tuitions, and therefore they are not dependent on the petitioners. He further contended that the petitioners are not financially sound, that petitioner No.2 is suffering from serious health problems and incurring heavy medical expenses, and that respondent No.2 had voluntarily left the petitioners and also executed gift deeds in favour of another son in respect of valuable properties without disclosing the same before the Court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing

this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the order passed by the trial Court granting interim maintenance is l