Ms. Anusha Otturi

Page 1 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: AT NIRMAL ::

Present:- Anusha Otturi, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

Monday, this the 2nd day of May, 2022

Crl.M.P.No. 172 of 2022

in

D.V.C. No.6 of 2021

Between:

1. Gaddam Niharika Reddy @ Pinky W/o. Gaddam Rakesh Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Jam village of Sarangapur mandal, Nirmal District, presently presiding at parents at Balaji Apartments Block-C, Divya nagar, Nirmal.

2. Gaddam Dvithi Shrey D/o. Gaddam Rakesh Reddy, Age: 4 years, minor, Rep., by her natural mother guardian Gaddam Niharika Reddy @ Pinky W/o. Gaddam Rakesh Reddy, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Jam village of Sarangapur mandal, Nirmal District, presently presiding at parents at Balaji Apartments Block-C, Divya nagar, Nirmal. … Petitioners/Aggrieved persons // AND //

Gaddam Rakesh Reddy, S/o. Late Gaddam Narender Reddy, Age: 31 years, Occ: private service, R/o. 5-11- 51/8G 32, priyadarshini nagar, Nirmal.

… Respondent

This petition came for final hearing before me on 29.04.2021 in the presence of Sri P.Naveen, Advocate for petitioners and Sri D.Rajashekhar, Advocate for the respondent. Upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1)This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 23(2) of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after be referred as D.V. Act for sake of brevity and convenience) to grant interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioners.

2)The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent and they lived a happy peaceful conjugal life for few months at Bangalore. Thereafter, the respondent

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 2 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021 along with petitioner No.1 shifted to Hyderabad as respondent was interested to group services examinations. Thereafter, respondent used suspect the petitioner No.1 when she talks with her cousins and with her parents. Respondents harassed both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry to purchase a flat at Hyderabad. The respondent filed a divorce petition vide OP.No.10/2019 on the file of the Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge’s Court at Nirmal. Even after filing the divorce petition, Petitioner No.1 joined

the company of the respondent No.1 at the weekend, but same was also became futile due to the adamant attitude of the respondent No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 never provided maintenance and comforts to the petitioners. As such the petitioners filed this petition for interim maintenance Rs.10,000/- towards the rent for the petitioner and

Rs.15,000/- per month towards the maintenance and school, medicine and nourishing expenses to the petitioner No.1.

It is to submitted that petitioner No.1 further relief under section 22 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, for damages to the petitioner No.1, to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and for Rs.50,000/- net cash given to respondent No.1 to purchase cloths and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- also cost of the articles and furniture i.e., TV., fridge, cooler, grinder and two double cot beds, sofa set and all kitchen household articles presented to the respondent No.1 in the marriage, for

Rs.11,00,000/- in cash to to the respondent No.1 in the marriage and also to return the 40 tulas gold ornaments and 3 ½ kg silver articles presented at the time of marriage, and also to return 10 tulas of gold ornaments presented by the parents of the petitioner

No.1 at the time of cradle ceremony of the petitioner No.2. further submitted that the relief for the protection of the rights of the petitioner No.2 in the ancestral joint family properties.

3)The petitioner No.1 filed an affidavit and submitted that, the respondent No.1 is a able bodied person and he is a private employee and earning Rs.60,00,000/- per year from agriculture and he is also having movable and immovable properties at his native

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 3 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021 place. It is further submitted that, though the respondent is having sufficient income, he willfully and intentionally neglecting her and petitioner No.2 and refusing to maintain them without providing any amount towards their maintenance. Further it is submitted that, she is unable to maintain herself and and her minor daughter, and they are leading a miserable life on the mercy of her parents. Further it is submitted that, as the respondent is her husband and father of petitioner No.2, it is mandatory obligation to provide means of maintenance to them, as such they need total Rs.25,000/- per month for their maintenance.

4)The respondent filed the counter and denied the allegations in the petition except that the petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife. It is submitted that, he never demanded any dowry neither at the time of marriage nor after the marriage and the said marriage was performed in a simple manner. Further it is submitted that, as the respondent’s family is poor, the petitioner No.1 did not given any respect, obey, insulted the presence of other to him. Petitioner No.1 stated with him since childhood she moved in cars and went to star hotels, leading her life style high-fi. He met with an accident on 27.06.2016 after this incident she declined to render service with him and stated that as she is unable to do service and behaved rudely with him due to which he faced mental agony. After recovery from the injuries, the respondent return back to Hyderabad and informed to the petitioner No.1 come and join with his company but she did not join. The respondent sent a legal notice to petitioner No.1 dated 17.07.2019 requesting to her to come and join with his company. After filing of HMOP.10/2019 compromise settlement talks have taken place and the respondent agreed to pay an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. He further submitted that since 2016 he is not doing private job due to suffering with mental agony and his reputation damaged in the society and she used to harass mentally to him.

5)No oral evidence adduced on either side. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 4 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021

6)The point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of interim maintenance

as prayed for in the petition?”

7)The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner No.1 is wife of respondent and during their wedlock they were blessed with one daughter/petitioner No.2. The respondent and his relatives harassed the petitioner

No.1 for additional dowry, for which the petitioner No.1 came out of the matrimonial home. He further argued that she had no means to maintain herself and her daughter/petitioner No.2. The respondent is doing private job and earning

Rs.60,00,000/- per year from agriculture. He further argued that the respondent

No.1 is neglecting to maintain the petitioner No.1 and her daughter even though he is having sufficient means to maintain them. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 and her daughter are entitled for interim maintenance .

8) The learned counsel for the respondent argued that through the agriculture sector, hardly getting Rs.50,000/- per annum after deduction of expenses.

Presently he is not doing job due to mental agony, and also his mother also depends up on him.

9) The respondent had not denied the fact of marriage with the petitioner No.1.

The contention of the petitioner No.1 is that the respondent doing private job and through agriculture he is earning Rs.6,00,000/- per annum, but being the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father to the minor daughter i.e., petitioner No.2, the respondent is having bounden duty to maintain the petitioner No.1 and their daughter, as the respondent is hale and healthy.

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 5 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021

10)The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner No.1 had left the society of the respondent on her own and she is not ready to live matrimonial life.

This contention has to be decided after full fledge trial. The petitioner No.1 and her daughter are residing separate from the respondent. In such a situation the respondent has an obligation to pay maintenance to the petitioner No.1 and her daughter, for which she revealed that she needs Rs.10,000/- towards monthly expenses and Rs.15,000/- per month for her dependent daughter and she has also stated in her affidavit that the respondent is having immovable properties at Jam village and he is able bodied person to maintain her and her daughter.

11)The Petitioner No.1 prayed for further relief of damages under section 22 of

Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act the same cannot be granted during the pending of trial. Simultaneously the petitioners have prayed for return of dowry amount from the respondents. The same may be granted after the petitioners have proved the point of giving dowry to the respondent during the course of trial. Accordingly, the petition is allowed partly.

12) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the means of the respondent. As the respondent has bounden duty towards petitioners

No.1 and 2, this Court is directing the respondent to pay an interim maintenance of

Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 till the disposal of main D.V.C.

13) In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month to the petitioner No.2 from the date of this order to till the disposal of main D.V.C. Further the respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance on or before 15th of every succeeding month.

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 6 of 6 Crl.MP.No.172 of 2022 in DVC No.6 of 2021

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 2 nd day of April, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal.

Appendix of Evidence

- NIL -

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

AJFCM, NIRMAL

Page 1 of 5 Order in M.C.No.3 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT NIRMAL

PRESENT: - Ms. Anusha Otturi Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal.

Monday, on this the 2nd day of May, 2022

M.C.No. 3 of 2020

Between:

1. Sadiya Banu W/o. Shaik Subhan, Age; 21 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Bapuji colony, Bheemgal village and mandal, Nizamabad District, presently residing at her parent’s house Gayathripuram street, Nirmal mandal and District.

2. Shiza Noor D/o. Shaik Subhan, Age: 1 years, R/o. Undr guardianship of petitoner No.1 (mohter) Gayathipuram street, Nirmal mandal and District.

… Petitioners // AND //

Shaik Subhan S/o. Late Ahmed Raziuddin, Age: About 29 years, Occ: Owner-cum-car driver, R/o. Bapuji colony, Bheemgal village and mandal, Nizamabad District.

… Accused .

This petition came for final hearing before me on 26.04.2022 in the presence of Sri D. Rajashekhar, Sri V.Mahender, Sri Md.Sheeraz, Advocates for petitioners and respondent remained exparte. Upon hearing the counsel for petitioners and on perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code praying this court to grant maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioners with costs from the date of filing of petition.

2.The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 05.03.2018 accordingly

Mohammedian Law. The marriage booklet issued Telangana State Waqf Board,

Hyderabad booklet No.38372 Edition 2017-2018. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner No.1 gave net cash of Rs.80,000/-, 2 Tulas gold, house hold articles, furniture and valuable items as dowry to the respondent. During their marital life

Page 2 of 5 Judgment in MC.No.3/2020 they were blessed with a baby child. Thereafter, respondent started harassment physically to bring additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the parents of petitioner. In the meantime petitioner No.1 conceived pregnancy, due to harassment of respondent and mental agony got abortion. Respondent was not provided with basic amenities, nourishment to the petitioner No.1. Thereafter, accordingly advice of doctor take bed rest at her parents house, subsequently she voluntarily join with the company of respondent and lead conjugal life few days happily, again respondent started harassment physically and mentally at the instigation of his mother and brothers forced to the petitioner No.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-.

During the absence of respondent, his mother and brothers harassed to bring

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- otherwise leave the matrimonial house, on the

instructions of respondent over phone, his mother and brothers necked her out from the house of respondent in the month of March 2019. At that time petitioner No.1 was 3 months pregnant later on she came to her parent’s house and residing at her parental house.

Since then the petitioner No.1 staying at her parent’s house. She is not having sufficient income to provide basic needs to her child i.e., petitioner No.2. The respondent is able bodied person, but intentionally refused to maintain the petitioners due to which they faced a lot of hardship. The petitioner No.1 further submitted that the respondent is working as owner-cum-car driver and give vehicle on rent in order to get yield income of Rs.40,000/- per month and having immovable properties at Nizamabad. Thus, the petitioners No.1 and 2 praying the court to grant

Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to them.

3.Complainant examined as PW-1 and Ex.A1 is exhibited on her behalf. The respondent is set exparte.

4. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material on record.

5.The point that falls for consideration is:

Page 3 of 5 Order in M.C.No.3 of 2020

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of maintenance as

prayed for in the petition?”

6.To substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got herself examined as PW-1 who filed her chief affidavit reiterating the averments made in the petition. In order to avoid repetition of the facts, the chief examination of

PW-1 is not extracted hereunder. In support of her contention PW-1 got marked

Ex.A1 i.e., marriage booklet which establishes the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent herein. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the Petitioner No.1 and respondent. The main contention of the petitioner No.1 is that after marriage the respondent lead happy marital life with the petitioner No.1 for only 15 days and thereafter he subjected the petitioner No.1 to physical and mental harassment by demanding

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, due to which the petitioner No.1 also suffered

abortion and even though the respondent promised to look after the petitioner

No.1 well, but he did not change his attitude and after the birth of petitioner

No.2 the respondent started demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and the parents and brother of the respondent necked out the petitioners from the house, as such having left with no other option, the petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 are residing with the parents of the petitioner No.1 and living on their mercy, who are not in position to maintain the petitioners.

7.It is the further contention of the petitioner No.1 that though the respondent is having own car and also having immovable properties and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month but he failed to provide any basic amenities and that the petitioner No.1 is having no other source of income to sustain herself and also to look after the welfare of the petitioner No.2, who is aged one year, as such she filed the present petition.

8.In the present case the respondent failed to appear before this court and as seen from the record he refused to receive notice sent by this court, as such

Page 4 of 5 Judgment in MC.No.3/2020 he was set exparte. The evidence of PW-1 remained un-challenged and un- rebutted. Therefore, the respondent being the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 is bound to maintain the petitioners. The un-challenged testimony of PW-1 corroborates and establishes the case of the petitioners.

Though the petitioners claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- but no document or evidence is produced before this court showing the earnings of respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, considering the plea of the petitioner and as the petitioner No.2 who is aged one year as on the date of the filing of the petition, who needs proper food, clothing and medication and also considering the economic and social status of the petitioner and respondent, I am of the considered opinion that awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner is just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly this point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs granting maintenance of

Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.2 from the respondent. The respondent is directed to pay the same from the date of filing of this petition. The maintenance amount shall be paid on or before 5th of every calendar month.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 2 nd day of May, 2022.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:For Respondent:

PW1 Sadiya Banu -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1: Marriage booklet issued by Telangana State Waqf Board, Hyderabad

Page 5 of 5 Order in M.C.No.3 of 2020

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

STC/1034/20221 / 1Dt: 12-03-2022

TSNR020012182022

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Present: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal

Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2022

STC/1034/2022

Between:

State of Telangana through SHO, PS Sarangapur Address: Sarangapur, Nirmal … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Methari Sai Address: Sarangapur, Nirmal … Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : APPO,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused called present and he is examined Under Sec. 251 of Cr.PC for the offence punishable Under Sec. 51(a) of DM Act and substance of accusation was readover and explained him in his

STC/1034/20221 / 1Dt: 12-03-2022 vernacular language and the Accused voluntarily pleaded guilty for the commission of this offence. Therefore, the Accused was convicted Under Sec. 252 of Cr.PC for the offence punishable Under Sec. 51(a) of DM Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 250.00 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only). In default of payment of the said fine amount he will undergone simple imprisonment for a period of (30) days. Total fine amount of Rs. 250.00 (Rupees two hundred and fifty only).

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 12-03-2022

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

CC/644/20151 / 1Dt: 12-03-2022

TSNR020007982015

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Present: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal

Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2022

CC/644/2015

Between:

PS LAXMANCCHANDA

Address: PS LAXAMANCCHANDA … Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

NAGAM RAVI @ RAMESH 4 OTHERS Address: AGE 30 YEARS, CASTE. MADDIGA, OCC. AGRIL,

RO.ERUGATLA

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for : APP,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

This case is advanced to today i.e., on 12.03.2022 in view of lok adalath and it is Settled before lok adalath.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 12-03-2022

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nirmal

Present: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal

CC/27/2020

Between: State of Telangana Through Excise station, Bhainsa … Complainant/Petitioner AND

Allepu Eellaiah … Accused/Respondent

Counsel for : APPO,Advocate

Counsel for : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Settled before lok Adalat.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)