##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.986 of 2025

DATE: 23.03.2026

BETWEEN:

Katarapu Sandeep

…..petitioner

And

Katarapu Anitha and others …..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the

order dated 05.03.2025 passed in M.P.No.192 of 2024 in M.C.No.447 of 2023 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

2 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.986 of 2025

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the order dated 05.03.2025 passed in M.P.No.192 of 2024 in M.C.No.447 of 2023 by the I Addl. Family Court-cum-XIV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The wife had filed the said petition under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C seeking interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month each for herself and her minor son, contending that the husband had neglected and failed to maintain them. It was alleged that after the marriage held on 17.04.2022, the respondent and his family members subjected her to physical and mental harassment and demanded additional dowry, due to which she was forced to live separately along with her minor child. The petitioner, however, denied the allegations and contended that the respondent - wife was employed and earning a substantial salary and that he was earning only a modest income as an electrician. After considering the rival contentions and material on record, the trial Court partly allowed the petition by granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child from the date of the petition till disposal of the main M.C., while rejecting the claim of the wife on the ground that she was earning and capable of

3 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.986 of 2025

maintaining herself. Aggrieved by the said order granting limited relief, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal

Revision Case seeking to set aside the impugned order.

3. Heard Sri S. Sukumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri K. Sai Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri M. Ramachandra Rao, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 is erroneous, perverse and passed without proper appreciation of the facts and law and that the Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner is only an ITI electrician earning about Rs.27,000/- per month and that he has the additional responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and meeting household expenses. He further submitted that though the Family Court observed that the wife is an MBA graduate and earning, it failed to direct her to contribute proportionately towards the maintenance of the minor child. He contended that the trial Court did not properly assess the actual needs of the minor child and

4 SKS,J Crl.R.C.No.986 of 2025

mechanically fixed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month without verifying the income and financial capacity of the respondent-wife, who is allegedly employed and earning substantial income. He further contended that the Family Court ought to have verified the bank accounts and income particulars of the respondent-wife before determining the quantum of maintenance. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal

Revision.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and baseless and that prior to the marriage the petitioner had clearly disclosed his educational qualification and financial position, stating that he had studied ITI Electrical and was working in the Metro Train with a modest salary and that his family was not financially well- off. He further submitted that there was no demand for dowry and the articles