AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.680 of 2025 in M.C.No.18 of 2024, dated 29.01.2026, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, whereby the learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the petition till the disposal of M.C.No.18 of 2024.
Heard Mr.Praveen Kumar Veerjala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is having a substantial income to maintain herself. The petitioner filed substantial material evidence before the learned trial Court. However, the learned trial Court, without considering the contention raised by the petitioner and without duly considering the evidence on record, erroneously passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2. The petitioner is ready to pay the amount awarded in favour of respondent No.3. Unless the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside to the extent of respondent No.2, the petitioner will be put to great hardship.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are husband and wife. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not disputing the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 as husband and wife. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is an obligation on the part of the husband to maintain respondent No.2, being his wife. Whether respondent No.2 is having a substantial income or not has to be adjudicated and decided by the learned trial Court in the main M.C.No.18 of 2024. The learned trial Court disposed of Crl.M.P.No.680 of 2025 based on the pleadings of the respective parties. Neither of the parties adduced any evidence in Crl.M.P.No.680 of 2025. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS. However, M.C.No.18 of 2024 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been pending for a long time. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the pleadings are complete and the matter has ripened for trial.
In view of the above, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of M.C.No.18 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the learned trial Court shall dispose of M.C.No.18 of 2024 uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 or in this Criminal Petition, and by duly taking into consideration the evidence that may be adduced by either of the parties, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.