IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.691 of 2023 & 239 of

2024 DATE: 01.04.2026 Crl.R.C.No.691 of 2023 BETWEEN:

Neelima Vanguru and others …..petitioners And Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy and another …..Respondents Crl.R.C.No.239 of 2024 BETWEEN:

Bommi Narasimha Sankeerth Reddy …..petitioner And Neelima Vanguru and others …..Respondents

COMMON ORDER

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

2. Crl.R.C.No.691 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners-wife and children, challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in M.C.No.25 of 2021 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

3. Crl.R.C.No.239 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner- husband challenging the order dated 31.07.2023 passed in M.C.No.25 of 2021 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in M.C. No. 25 of 2021.

5. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 had filed the maintenance case contending that petitioner No.1 was the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were their minor children born out of the wedlock. The marriage was solemnized on 03.06.2008, and the parties initially resided in the United States, where the respondent was employed. Due to matrimonial disputes, petitioner No.1 along with the children returned to India in October 2015 on the assurance that the respondent would relocate to India, which he failed to do. Petitioner No.1 had earlier obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, while the respondent’s divorce petition was dismissed. Despite the said decree and interim maintenance orders, the respondent neither joined the petitioners nor paid maintenance regularly. The petitioners asserted that petitioner No.1 was earning a modest salary, whereas the respondent was working as a Director in a U.S.-based company earning substantial income, and sought maintenance of Rs.12,00,000/- per month.

6. The respondent admitted the marital relationship but denied neglect and desertion. He contended that petitioner No.1 had voluntarily travelled to India along with the children on vacation with return tickets and subsequently chose not to return to the U.S. He denied having promised to relocate to India and asserted that petitioner No.1 was gainfully employed with a high income sufficient to maintain herself and the children. The respondent claimed that his take-home salary after tax deductions was limited and that the maintenance claimed was exorbitant and exaggerated. He further contended that petitioner No.1 had transferred substantial funds from the sale of their U.S. property to her father’s account and was living a lavish lifestyle. He asserted that he had opened fixed deposits in the names of the children and that he was not liable to pay maintenance to petitioner No.1.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, and the trial Court partly allowed the petition vide order dated 31.07.2023, holding that the respondent, having sufficient means, had neglected to maintain the petitioners. The trial Court found that the respondent had failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and had been irregular in paying maintenance despite Court directions. It further held that the petitioner No.1 did not have sufficient income to maintain herself and the children at the standard of living to which they were accustomed, particularly considering the respondent’s earning capacity. Drawing adverse inference against the respondent for non-disclosure of complete income details, the trial Court partly allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month to petitioner