Telangana High Court
C. Buchamma vs C. Dhanraj Goud on 4 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3104 & 5104 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
Since a common issue arises in both the criminal
petitions, they are being taken up for disposal together by way
of this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/wife
seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to the extent of
granting Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and
consequently, prayed to enhance the same from Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- per month.
3. Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner/husband
seeking to quash the order dated 22.01.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023 by the Family
Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.M.P. No. 355 of 2024.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, the
legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under
Section 125(1)(a) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance of
Rs.50,000/- per month pending disposal of M.C.No.264 of
2023. She claimed that she was married to the respondent on
10.02.1989 and they had three daughters during their
wedlock. She alleged that the respondent neglected his
responsibilities, entered into a second marriage with one
Sunitha in December 2003 after fraudulently obtaining an ex
parte divorce decree, and failed to support her and their
daughters. She further stated that she had been maintaining
herself and her daughters with the support of her parents and
brothers and incurred substantial expenses towards
education, marriage, and medical treatment. She also
disclosed filing D.V.C.No.20 of 2016, in which she was
granted various reliefs including maintenance and
compensation, and stated that the respondent had only been
paying Rs.23,000/- per month pursuant to the modified order
of the appellate Court.
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
6. On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting the
marriage and paternity, opposed the petition contending that
he was ousted from the matrimonial home in the year 1999
and that the conduct of the petitioner was abusive and
aggressive. He submitted that he had obtained a divorce
decree which was later set aside, and his subsequent appeal
and SLP were dismissed. He claimed to have married Sunitha
only after the ex parte divorce decree and stated that he was
maintaining two children from his second marriage. He
further stated that the petitioner suppressed the earlier DVC
proceedings and filed the M.C. to harass him. He stated that
he was already paying Rs.23,000/- per month as per the DVC
appellate order and could not afford to pay additional
maintenance due to financial obligations.
7. Upon hearing both sides and examining the affidavits of
assets and liabilities, bank statements, and other evidence,
the trial Court held that the petitioner had not disclosed the
earlier DVC order at the time of filing the petition and that she
was already receiving Rs.23,000/- per month. The trial Court
further observed that the maintenance amount sought was
exorbitant and considering the financial capacity of the
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
respondent, the trial Court partly allowed the petition and
directed the respondent to pay an additional Rs.5,000/- per
month as interim maintenance from the date of the petition,
over and above the amount already being paid, and to clear
arrears within three months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner
filed Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 to enhance the amount Rs.5,000/-
to Rs.20,000/- per month and the respondent filed
Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 to quash the order dated 22.01.2025
passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264 of 2023.
8. Heard Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025
and the respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 as well as
Sri M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 and for respondent in
Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent – State in both the cases.
9. In Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is
contrary to law and the evidence on record and that the trial
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
court failed to appreciate the material placed before it in the
proper perspective, resulting in serious injustice to the
petitioner/wife. He further submitted that the essential
ingredients required for granting maintenance under Section
125 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied, and the trial Court overlooked
vital documents, including the bank passbook of the petitioner
marked as Exhibit R1. Despite this, the trial Court granted
Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the
respondent/husband, which is inadequate and that the
respondent/husband is living with an unmarried daughter
and is struggling financially, whereas the petitioner/wife is
residing in a three-storied house with his second wife and has
admitted to earning a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- with a net take-
home of Rs.80,000/-.
10. Learned counsel in Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025 argued that
the trial Court failed to consider the financial capacity of the
petitioner and the hardship faced by the respondent/husband
and her daughter, especially when the relief granted in
DVC.No.20 of 2016 is under challenge and pending before the
appellate court. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside
the order of the trial Court by allowing this Crl.P.No.3104 of
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
2025 and consequently, prayed the Court to dismiss
Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025.
11. In Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025, learned counsel for the
respondent/husband submitted that the order of the Family
Court granting additional interim maintenance is contrary to
law, evidence, and principles of justice and that the
respondent/husband is already paying Rs.23,000/- per
month as per an interim order in Criminal Appeal No.119 of
2024 arising from DVC.No.20 of 2016, and the Family Court
failed to explain why that amount was insufficient. The
petitioner/wife, despite already receiving maintenance, filed
the present case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with the same
facts, which amounts to forum shopping and misuse of legal
process. The respondent/husband, a low-grade employee in
ONGC with a take-home salary of Rs.60,991/- and heavy loan
liabilities of Rs.15 lakhs, is financially overburdened. The trial
Court overlooked these facts as well as the admission by the
petitioner/wife that her monthly expenses are Rs.15,000/-,
which she is already receiving.
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
12. Learned counsel in Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 contended
that the respondent/husband has two children from his
second marriage who are still studying and dependent on him,
and this additional financial burden will severely affect his
ability to support them and that the petitioner/wife owns
agricultural land and a house and gets support from her
family, but these facts were ignored by the Family Court. The
daughter of the petitioner/wife, being a major, is not entitled
to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless she is
physically or mentally incapable, which is not established and
that the respondent/husband also alleged that the
petitioner/wife has been harassing him through multiple legal
proceedings, including false criminal cases and complaints to
his employer. Therefore, he prayed the Court to allow
Crl.P.No.5104 of 2025 by setting aside the order dated
22.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2024 in M.C.No.264
of 2023 and consequently, prayed the Court to dismiss
Crl.P.No.3104 of 2025.
13. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on
record, it is to be noted that the respondent/husband
8
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
contended that he is already under financial strain as he has
two children born through his second marriage, who are still
pursuing their education and are dependent on him. He
submitted that this constitutes an additional financial burden
and that he is already paying maintenance in proceedings
initiated under the Domestic Violence Act (DVC), wherein he is
directed to pay an amount of Rs.23,000/- per month. He
further contended that directing him to pay an additional
Rs.5,000/- per month in the present maintenance case (M.C.)
is excessive and not sustainable in law. He also brought to
the notice of the Court that during the subsistence of the
divorce granted by the trial Court, which was subsequently set
aside, he entered into a second marriage and is now required
to support his second wife and their children. It was his case
that his monthly gross salary is Rs.61,000/-, and he
expressed his inability to comply with the impugned
maintenance order, requesting that it be set aside.
14. On the other hand, the petitioner/wife filed a criminal
petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance from
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month, contending that the
amount awarded by the trial Court was meager and
9
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
insufficient to meet her needs. She further submitted that the
respondent had suppressed his actual income and that, as per
the salary certificate placed on record, his gross monthly
salary was shown as Rs.1,61,000/-, and the pay slip for the
month of August 2024 indicated his gross salary as
Rs.1,42,147/- and net salary as Rs.60,991/-. She further
submitted that the second marriage of the respondent is not a
legally valid marriage and hence his obligation to maintain her
continues.
15. The trial Court, while considering the submissions and
the material placed on record, has taken note of the fact that
the respondent’s salary is not merely Rs.61,000/-, as claimed
by him, but his gross income is significantly higher, although
his net take-home salary was shown as Rs.60,991/-. It also
observed that the maintenance amount under the DVC
proceedings was already modified and reduced from
Rs.23,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, and accordingly, the trial Court
awarded Rs.5,000/- per month in the present maintenance
case, keeping in view the totality of circumstances.
10
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.3104 & 5104 of 2025
16. On appreciation of the record, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no apparent illegality,
irregularity, or impropriety in the order passed by the trial
Court. It appears that the trial Court has exercised its
discretion judiciously and reasonably while granting interim
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife,
taking into account the amount already being paid under DVC
proceedings. As such, there are no valid grounds made out
either to set aside the said order as sought by the
respondent/husband or to enhance the interim maintenance
as prayed by the petitioner/wife. Therefore, both the criminal
petitions filed by the respective parties are devoid of merits
and the same are liable to be dismissed.
17. Accordingly, these criminal petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 04.08.2025
SAI