CRLP/8416/2026 of MOHAMMED ZAINULABUDDIN Vs The State of Telangana, on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the I Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad, ln M.P.No.654 of 2025 in M.C.No.234 of 2024. dated 28.04.2026. to the extent the petitioner was directed to pay halfofthe arrears of the amount, while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr.Kishore Singh, leamed counsel for respondent No.2.

\I-

3 . The leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that reslrondcnt No.2 llled M.C.No.234 of 2024 before the trial Cour1. invoking thc provisions of Section 125 of the CI.P.C., claiming r.narntenance of Rs.15,000/- each per month for herself and for respondent No.3, u'ho is her minor son. The learned trial Cor"rrt. bv ordcr dated 21.08.2025. allowed the said M.C. in paft by passing an ex-pane order and directed the petitioner to pay an alnL)unt of Rs. I0,000'- per rnonth each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from thc datc of the petition. lmmediately after coming to know about the sard ex-par1e order. the petitioner approached the triai Coufi and 1lled M.P.No.654 of 2025, invoking the provisions of Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Section l0 of the Family Courts Act, seekir.rg to set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.08.2025 'lhe leamed trial Court allowed the said petition by order dated 28.04.2026; however, while setting aside the ex- parte order, imposed an onerous condition directing the petitioncr to pay half of the arrears amount. He further submitted that. once the trial Court had set aside the ex-parle order dated 2t.03 2025 passed in M.C.No.234 of 2024 and permitted the -- petitioner to contest the proceedings therein, it ought not to have imposed a condition directing the petitioner to pay half of the arears amount. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside to the extent of the condition imposed therein

4. Per contra, the learrred counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.234 of 2024 n lune 2024, on behalf of herself and her minor son. Though the petitioner received summons in the said M.C., he failed to contest the matter. Thereafter, the leamed trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, allowed the said M.C. in part and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each towards maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P.No.654 of 2025 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. The learned trial Court, with an intention to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings, allowed the said petition on 28.04.2026 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay half of the arears amount. The order passed by the leamed trial Court is in accordance r.r'ith law, parlicularly when the petitioner is not disputing his relationship with respondent Nos.2 and 3 4.1 lle furtl.rer subrnitted that respondent No.2 has no source of income to rnaintain herself and her minor son. The petitioner, being the husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3, has an obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. In suppofi of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by the High Couft of Allahabad in Lalit Singh v. State of Uttar Prudesht . r'r'herein. rvhile setting aside the order passed by the trial Court ln the M.C.. the High Court directed the petitioner therein to deposit an amount of Rs.1 crore before the Court belorv and furlhcr directed him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to."r'ards maintenance to the parties therein, until clisposal of the saicl M.C

The lcarned Addrtlonal Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not disputing the relationship between himself and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, he is under an Cr ir)r rnal ttc\r,r.,l No. I6g6 ol.lt)li. on 01. ll.l02i -- obligation to pay maintenance to them, particularly when respondent No.2 has pleaded that she has no source of income to rnaintain herself and her minor child, respondent No.3. He further submitted that the leamed trial Court has rightly imposed the condition while allowing the petition filed by the petitioner.

6. This Coun considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the wife and son of the petitioner. respectively. Respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.234 of 2024 in June 2024, invoking the provisions of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each per month for herself and for hel minor son, i.e., r'espondent No.3. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner received summons in the said M.C. but failed to contest the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.2 entered the witness box and was examined as PW. l, and Exs.P.l to P.6 were marked on behalf of respondent No.2. The leamed trial Court, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, allowed the M.C. in part by older dated 21 .08.2025 and directed the petitioner [o pav an amourlt of Rs.10,000/- each per month tt'r lespondent Nos.2 and 3 tor.vards nraintenance, from the date of the petition. -l'he petitioner r.,",as lurther directed to pay,the said aln()Lrnt on or betbrc the lOtl' of'cven, successive month and to clear the arrears within a period of three months fiom the date of the said older. '[-hereafter. the petitioner flled N4.P.No.654 ol 2015 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 21.08.2025 Taking into consideration the lacts and circurnstances of the casc. the learned trial Court allowed the said petition with an intcntion lo plor.ide one oppoftunity'to the petitioner to contest the procecriings. sub.iect to the condition lhat the petitioner shall pa1 half of'the arrears amount. failing vrhich the petition shall slands disrn isse d

7. The specific CASC of respondent No.2 ls that she is a housewit-e and has no source of income to maintain herself' anci her nrinor son. Even accoldins to the learned counsel for the petitioner'. the petitioner is not disputine his relationship u'ith respondcnt Nos., and 3. Hencc. this Court is of the considerecl Vte\\ rhat tlre pcril.ioncr. being the husband of'r.esponclenl No.l

----, alld the father of respondent No'3, has to provide the necessary flnancial assistance to them.

8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and to render substantial justice to the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the ir.npugned order passed by the learned trial Court in M.P.No'654 of 2025, dated 28.04.2026, to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay half of the arrears amount, is set aside' subject to the following conditions I . The petitioner shall deposit an amottnt of Rs.1,00,000/- befbre the learned trial Court, to the credit of M.C.No.234 of 2024, in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on such deposit the respondent Nos.2 and 3 rnay be permitted to withdraw the same.

2. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per nronth to respondent No.2 and f.s.7,5001 per month - to respondent No.3 towards interim maintenance. on or belore the lOth day of every succeeding month, till thc disposal olM.C.No.l34 of 2021. -1. The lcarned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of NI.C .No.2 l4 of 102.t iis erpeditiouslv as possible, preferabll, u.ithin a per.iod of'four (4) months fi.orn tlrc date of receipl of a cop-r ol this order. The parties in lis shall cooper.ate witlt thc trial ('ourt tbr disposal of tlre clsr ri ithout scekinrl undue ad.jour.nments.

9. \\'irh rhe abor e directions. fhe Criminal petition is disposed ol. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any. shall stand closcd SD/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// € To SECTION OFFICER The Judge. I Addrtronal besslons coLrrr Hyderab uo.'u^t'' court-cum-XlV Additional [\4ekopolitan Two CCs to the pubirc pro: Hyderabad rourj -" r ' usecutor, High court for the state of re/angana, at One CC to Srr Gulam Rabbanr Advocate IOPUCI

One CC to Sri Kishore Singh, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies

DLlBr\ I

HIGH COURT DATED: 0611012026

ORDER

CRLP.No.8416 of 2026 jE Op j=' ?pg,,pii ? (l $$ ocl 2025 t +- <') DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION fri"W l,a,l'