Telangana High Court
Mohammed Ismail Quadry vs Nousheen Fathima on 14 July, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7730 of 2026
Between :
Mohammed Ismail Quadry S/o Mohammed
Ibrahim Quadry, aged 37 years, Engineer, R/o
12-11-629/200, L.N.Nagar, Warasiguda,
Secunderabad, T.S.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Nousheen Fathima W/o Mohammed Ismail
Quadry, aged 29 years, Household and two
others.
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.07.2026
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see the
Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish Yes/No
to see the fair copy of the Judgment?
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7730 of 2026
% Dated 14.07.2026
# Mohammed Ismail Quadry S/o
Mohammed Ibrahim Quadry, aged 37
years, Engineer, R/o 12-11-629/200,
L.N.Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad,
T.S.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
$ Nousheen Fathima W/o Mohammed
Ismail Quadry, aged 29 years, Household
and two others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. Y.Krishna Mohan Rao
^ Counsel for Respondents :Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy (For R.1 & R.2)
Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, Addl.P.P.
(For R.3)
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2025 LawSuit (All) 1250
2. 2026 LawSuit (P&H) 12(2014) 16 SCC 715
3. (2018) 12 SCC 199
3
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7730 of 2026
DATE: 14.07.2026
Between :
Mohammed Ismail Quadry
....Petitioner
AND
Nousheen Fathima and two others.
....Respondents
:ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2026 passed by the learned
Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial
Court’) in M.P.No.565 of 2025 in M.C. No.216 of 2024, whereby the
learned trial Court directed the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per
month to respondent No.2 towards their interim maintenance.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed M.C. No.216 of 2024
against the petitioner invoking the provisions of Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to
respondent No.1 and Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent No.2,
4who is none other than son of respondent No.1. Along with the said
M.C., respondent No.1 filed M.P.No.565 of 2025 on her behalf and
also on behalf of her son seeking interim maintenance at
Rs.80,000/- per month to herself and Rs.40,000/- per month to her
son. The trial Court was pleased to allow the said petition in part
directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month
to respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.2
towards their interim maintenance. Hence the present criminal
petition.
3. Heard Mr.Y.Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr.P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2, and Mr.Jithendar Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1 Learned counsel submitted that respondent No.1 is working in
NTT Data Private Limited as an ERP Senior Specialist and drawing a
monthly salary of an amount of Rs.87,000/- and she filed an
affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in M.C. No.216 of 2024, wherein
she specifically stated the above said facts and therefore, she is
having sufficient means to maintain herself and to maintain her
minor son. The learned trial Court, without taking into
consideration the above said fact, erroneously directed the petitioner
to pay a huge amount of Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1
5and Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards their interim
maintenance.
4.2 He further submitted that the learned trial Court passed a
cryptic order without assigning any reasons, merely on the ground
that the petitioner is an employee and drawing a monthly salary of
Rs.2.18 lakh per month and he is having responsibility to maintain
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, he is liable to pay the interim
maintenance, without taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner has to maintain himself and also look after his old aged
parents. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial
Court is liable to be set aside.
4.3 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
decisions;
i) Ankit Saha v. State of U.P. and another 1;
and
ii) Anu Aggarwal v. Sushant Aggarwal 2.
5. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2:
5.1 Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the marriage of the
petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 14.02.2021 at
1
2025 LawSuit (All) 1250
2 2026 LawSuit (P&H) 12
6Hyderabad, as per Muslim Rites and Customs, and at the time of
their marriage, the parents of respondent No.1 had given Rs.5 lakhs
of cash, 10 tulas of gold, 50 tulas of silver, wrist watch and other
household articles, however, the petitioner and his family members
harassed respondent No.1 demanding additional dowry. Petitioner
and respondent No.1 were blessed with a son on 05.11.2021. In the
month of January, 2022, respondent No.1 returned to the
matrimonial house of the petitioner from her parents’ house. The
petitioner and his family members have harassed her, and failed to
provide her with proper food and demanded for additional dowry of
Rs.20 lakhs. In the month of May 2022, the petitioner and his family
members picked up a quarrel with respondent No.1 and beat her
mercilessly and necked her out along with the minor son from the
matrimonial house. At that stage, respondent No.1 came to know
from reliable sources that the petitioner had married another woman
and was living with her. Hence, respondent No.1 lodged the
complaint before the Police, Allapur, Cyberabad. Based on the said
complaint, Crime No.163 of 2024 was registered for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner and others.
The petitioner has not provided any financial assistance and not
taken care of respondent No.1 or her minor son in any manner and
7
that the petitioner neglected them, though he is having sufficient
means to pay the maintenance to them.
5.2 He further submitted that respondent No.1 is an educated
lady, with great hardship for the well being of the minor to brought
up has performing odd jobs and making the sense to survive herself
and her minor child without disturbing the day to day life. She is
residing at the area of Mehdipatnam and she has no other source of
income and respondent No.2 is a student and he required school fee,
transportation, food, shelter and also medical expenses. The learned
trial Court after duly taking into consideration the above said facts
allowed the petition in part and directed the petitioner to pay an
amount of Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and
Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards their interim
maintenance, though respondent No.1 claimed an amount of
Rs.80,000/- per month to her and Rs.40,000/- per month to
respondent No.2. There are no grounds to interfere with the well
considered impugned order passed by the trial Court and the
criminal petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with
costs.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on
8
record, it reveals that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized
with respondent No.1 on 14.02.2021 and there is no dispute in
respect of the relationship between the petitioner and respondent
Nos.1 and 2. The specific case of respondent No.1 is that she and
her minor son were necked out from the matrimonial house of the
petitioner in the month of May 2022 and since then they are living
separately and the petitioner has neither taken care of them nor
given any financial support to respondent No.1 and her minor son.
Even according to the petitioner, he is employed with Verizon Data
Services India Private Limited as a Senior Engineer CSLT Software
Development and earning an amount of Rs.2.18 lakhs per month.
The specific case of respondent No.1 is that the petitioner is also
having other source of income of Rs.1 lakh per month. Respondent
No.1 in her affidavit filed before the trial Court specifically stated that
she is an educated woman and she is living along with her son at the
area of Mehdipatnam and respondent No.2 is going to school for
pursuing studies and he requires school fee, transportation, food,
shelter and medical expenses. The said facts were not disputed by
the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above said facts, the
learned trial Court allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and
2 in part and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of
Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.20,000/- per
month to respondent No.2 towards their interim maintenance.
9
7. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that respondent No.1 is an employee and even according
to her affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, she is drawing a monthly
salary of Rs.87,000/- and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any
maintenance from the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner and
respondent No.1 have been living separately since 30.05.2022 and
that the petitioner has not disputed that their minor son was living
with respondent No.1 and she is taking care of him and the
petitioner has not provided any financial assistance either to
respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 towards their maintenance.
Further, the specific case of respondent No.1 that the amount which
was drawing through her employment is not sufficient to maintain
herself and to maintain her minor son. Hence, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner being husband of respondent
No.1 and father of respondent No.2, there is an obligation on his part
to take their care and to provide necessary financial assistance to
them, especially the petitioner is a Software Employee and drawing a
good amount of salary of more than Rs.2 lakhs.
8. It is relevant to mention that in Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil
Kachwaha 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the wife had a
postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur.
The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient
3
(2014) 16 SCC 715
10
income, she would not require financial assistance from the
husband. The Hon’ble Apex Court repelled the said contention, and
held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could
not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
9. In Shailja v. Khobbanna 4, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family
Court. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is
sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the
lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Sustenance does
not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival.
10. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Ankit Saha (supra) and Anu Aggarwal (supra) are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on the
ground that wife in both the cases suppressed the material fact of
their employment and also in the above said judgments, the trial
Court disposed of the main cases after a full-fledged trial. Aggrieved
by the final orders of the trial Court, the parties therein have
approached the respective High Courts. Whereas in the case on
hand, respondent No.1 has not suppressed any material fact,
especially she filed an affidavit of Assets and Liabilities in the main
4
(2018) 12 SCC 199
11
M.C. stating that she is an employee in NTT Data Private Limited and
drawing salary of Rs.87,000/- per month and the said amount is not
sufficient to maintain herself and her minor son and the learned trial
Court disposed of the interlocutory application and awarded interim
maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 basing upon the pleadings
of the respective parties and the main M.C. is still pending and
ripened for trial.
11. It is already stated supra that the petitioner and respondent
No.1 are husband and wife and respondent No.2 is their minor son
and there is an obligation on the part of the petitioner to take care of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, and to provide necessary financial aid to
them, especially the petitioner is a Software Employee, drawing a
good amount of salary of more than Rs.2 lakhs.
12. For the foregoing reasons as well as the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the precedent decisions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Sunita Kachwaha (supra) and Shailaja (supra), and to
meet the ends of justice to the parties, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is
liable to be modified insofar as to the extent of granting interim
maintenance to respondent No.1 as mentioned below;
i) The petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-
(Rs.Twenty thousand only) per month in the place of
Rs.40,000/- per month, to respondent No.1 towards her
12
interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition till
the disposal of the main M.C.
ii) The petitioner is further directed to pay monthly
maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month
and to pay arrears to respondent No.1 within a period of four
(4) weeks from today.
iii) The rest of the impugned order stands confirmed.
13. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that before the learned trial Court in M.C.No.216 of 2024,
pleadings were completed and the matter is coming up for trial.
Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances,
the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of
the main M.C., in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the
observations made in this order and in the impugned order, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4)
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties
in the lis are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for disposal of
the case without seeking undue adjournments.
14. With the above directions, the criminal petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 14.07.2026
Note: L.R. copy to be marked.
b/o
pgp
