HARILAL DHARMASOTH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard M/s. Giruka Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Anupriya Sethi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire record.

(2.) This Criminal Case is filed by petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order dtd. 14/9/2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judgecum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, ('trial Court'), in M.C.No.192 of 2022, wherein a petition filed by respondent No.2 herein-wife under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance of Rs.2,50,000.00 per month was partly allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.90,000.00 per month along with legal expenses of Rs.20,000.00 and also to pay arrears from the date of petition within three months in three installments from the date of order.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein are husband and wife respectively. According to respondent No.2, their marriage (registered marriage) took place on 19/1/1998 and her family members gave dowry of Rs.1,50,000.00 in cash and two tulas of gold to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as a private employee with monthly salary of Rs.14,000.00. Thereafter, the petitioner went to United States of America (USA) on 24/1/1998 and started earning 60,000 dollars per annum. On 7/5/1998, their marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs by incurring expenses of Rs.3,00,000.00. Thereafter, respondent No.2 joined the conjugal society of the petitioner and gave birth to two children out of the wedlock. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner had suspicious nature and therefore, did not allow her to have any communication and did not allow her to do any work. Further, the petitioner did not provide any financial assistance to respondent No.2, whereas, he was spending his earnings for welfare of his siblings and their children. Whenever, respondent No.2 made attempts to ask about the income and savings of the petitioner, he reacted rudely and also physically attacked respondent No.2 on some occasions and advised her not to interfere in his affairs. Further, the sister and brother-in-law of the petitioner also encouraged him to treat respondent No.2 like a slave.