Habeeb Bheemrao vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay

This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.04.2026 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the trial Court') in Crl.M.P.No.144 of 2025 in M.C.No.23 of 2025, wherein, the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.3, totaling Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition till the date of disposal of the main M.C by way of interim maintenance.

Heard Ms. Praveena Mahipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Jithender Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.2 had voluntarily left the matrimonial house of the petitioner as long as in the month of October, 2023 and she was living with her minor son. Respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.23 of 2025 before the trial Court, seeking maintenance against the petitioner especially after receiving the summons in Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition filed by the petitioner, with an intention to harass the petitioner. The petitioner requested respondent No.2 to come and join with the petitioner. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 has not come forward to join with the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is having sufficient income to maintain herself and also to maintain respondent No.3 as she is a well educated person. Though the petitioner is a software employee, he has to pay installments to several loans which were availed from financial institutions and banks. Learned trial Court without properly considering the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner, allowed the application in part and awarded a huge amount of Rs.25,000/- towards interim maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the same is contrary to law and liable to be quashed.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is not disputing the relationship with respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than his wife and minor son. Respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.23 of 2025 invoking the provisions under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.), claiming maintenance of Rs.30,000/- each per month to her and her minor son on 18.06.2025. Along with the said M.C, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed Crl.M.P.No.144 of 2025 invoking the provisions under Section 144 of the BNSS, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the averments made in support of the application as well as the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner and after hearing both parties, allowed Crl.M.P.No.144 of 2025 in part, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.3 from the date of filing of the said application till the disposal of main M.C.

This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court had rightly passed the discretionary order in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS.

During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in M.C.No.23 of 2025, the pleadings have been completed and the matter is ripe for trial. As per the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., learned trial Court ought to have decided the M.C within a period of six (06) months from the date of filing of the petition. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pleadings have been completed. In view of the same, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in M.C.No.23 of 2025 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order or in this order by duly taking into consideration the evidence which is going to be adduced by either of the parties. It is made clear that the parties to the lis shall cooperate with the trial Court for disposal of M.C.No.23 of 2025 without seeking undue adjournments.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.