J. SHYAM BABU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner, J. Shyam Babu, is the respondent in D.V.C. No. 24 of 2015 on the file of the Court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar filed against him by his wife, J. Rajini Kumari.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that during pendency of said D.V.C., the revision petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1121 of 2015 stating therein that said case started in the year 2014 and it came for his cross-examination after 21 months and he made total payments of Rs. 1,50,000/-; that his wife occupied his flat at Manikonda and she created a poisonous atmosphere between her younger brother and himself, which resulted in his brother filing a false case against him; that she also got filed a false case against him through her sister and also instigated the land owners to file consumer case; that the behaviour of his wife caused him acute mental cruelty, resulting in deterioration of his health and he was thrown to financial crisis; that he is borrowing amounts to pay maintenance to the children and that the DVC filed by her is not at all maintainable. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the cross-examination of the DVC petitioner (respondent to this application supra) on 01.12014, it was stated by her that she was abandoned by him by sending her out in February, 2012 and the DVC filed by her is in January, 2014, which is two years later to it, and there is no domestic relationship subsisting for the two years to accrue cause of action and thereby the DVC is not maintainable and the same is labile to be dismissed. It is also further averment of the petitioner that the respondent looted away his hard earned money and utensils and that they lived for four years before going to Saudi and seven years after coming from Saudi; that she made him to incur Rs. 15 lakhs for her illegal desires; and that he is ready to take welfare of his sons.

(3.) The said petition was opposed by the DVC Petitioner as respondent to this petition by filing a counter stating that the DVC respondent is prolonging the litigation by filing petition after petition and not even paying regular interim maintenance; that the DVC was originally numbered in the year 2013 fixing the appearance of the DVC respondent in January, 2014; that the DVC respondent filed his chief affidavit in November, 2014 after the evidence of DVC petitioner and but for his evidence, he did not appear before the DVC Court and he has fallen due an amount of Rs. 80,000/- out of the maintenance claim; that the petition is frivolous and vexatious with no any valid grounds and hence to dismiss the DVC Petition.