IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA DATE: 01.05.2026 Crl.R.C.No.672 of 2025 BETWEEN:

Sohail Ahmed …..Revision petitioner And Smt. Afifa Nazneen and others …..Respondents Crl.R.C.No.817of 2025 BETWEEN:

Sohail Ahmed and others ….. Revision petitioners And Smt. Afifa Nazneen and others …..Respondents : COMMON ORDER:

Crl.R.C.No.672 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2024 by the learned Judge, I-Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad. Crl.R.C.No.817 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.204 of 2025 by the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the cases arise out of proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in D.V.C. No.151 of 2014 on the file of the IV-Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The respondent-wife filed the said DVC alleging that she was subjected to domestic violence and sought various reliefs including protection orders, maintenance, alternate accommodation, return of gold ornaments and valuables, Meher amount, and compensation. By order dated 09.05.2024, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the petition and granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, Rs.8,000/- towards alternate accommodation, return of Meher amount, and compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, along with other reliefs.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, two separate criminal appeals were filed under Section 29 of the Act. The wife preferred Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024 seeking enhancement of the reliefs granted by the trial Court. The husband and his family members, on the other hand, preferred Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2024 challenging the very grant of reliefs by the trial Court.

4. The appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024, partly allowed the appeal and modified the trial Court order by enhancing the maintenance to Rs.25,000/- per month, increased alternate accommodation to Rs.20,000/- per month, enhanced compensation to Rs.25,00,000/-, and further directed return of gold ornaments, sale proceeds of vehicles, and transfer of certain properties in favour of the wife and child. Insofar as Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2024 filed by the husband is concerned, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the trial Court, holding that the husband is liable to maintain the wife and child and cannot escape liability on the grounds of alleged income constraints, remarriage, or other responsibilities.

5. Challenging the aforesaid appellate judgments passed in Crl.A.No.39 of 2024 and Crl.A.No.204 of 2024, the husband filed the present Criminal Revision Cases. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after referred to as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’.

6. Heard Sri K. Srinivas Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners, Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the cases.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the impugned judgments are unsustainable both in law and on facts, as the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence and granted reliefs based on mere assumptions without any cogent proof of domestic violence. He further submitted that the directions for return of gold, valuables, sale proceeds from vehicle and transfer of properties are baseless and unsupported by any reliable evidence of entrustment or possession and that the findings regarding the income of the husband are erroneous, as genuine salary and income records were wrongly discarded, leading to an inflated assessment of income, while ignoring that the respondent-wife is earning and not entitled to excessive maintenance. The grant