Allowed

K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Prakasam Dt., v. Kandi Lakshmi Devi, Krishna and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Feb 2020CRLRC/1406/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a Criminal Revision Case under CrPC Sections 397 and 401. Relying on a Division Bench oral order and a compromise settlement between the parties where the husband agreed to the revision being allowed for Rs.4,00,000/- alimony, the court set aside the earlier order dismissing the husband's divorce plea for cruelty and desertion.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16.03.2016 in M.C.No.28 of 2012 is set aside.

K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Prakasam Dt., Vs Kandi… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1406 OF 2016

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

¶4

The present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the order, dated 16.03.2016, in M.C.No.28 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge – cum – Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada.

¶5

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the oral order, dated 11.12.2017, in F.C.A.M.P.No.704 of 2017 in F.C.A.No.169 of 2017 and F.C.A.No.169 of 2017 passed by a Division Bench of the common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the present Revision Case may be allowed.

¶6

The petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.193 of 2013 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum – Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada seeking divorce from respondent No.1/wife on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and the same was dismissed on 16.3.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred F.C.A.No.169 of 2017. Pending appeal, both the parties entered into a compromise pursuant to which, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the wife towards full and final settlement as permanent alimony. A reading of the order further indicates that Crl.R.C.No.1406 of 2016 filed by the

¶7

¶8

petitioner/husband against the order, dated 16.3.2016, in M.C.No.28 of 2012 would be allowed setting aside the order in the M.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/wife would submit that in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench, the present revision has to be allowed.

¶10

Having regard to the above and in view of the fact that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and one of the terms in the agreement was for allowing the revision to which respondent No.1/wife would not object, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order, dated 16.03.2016, in M.C.No.28 of 2012 on the file of the learned XIV Additional District Judge – cum – Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶12

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Date : 12.2.2020 AMD

150

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶17

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1406 OF 2016

¶18

Date : 12.2.2020

¶19

AMD

K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Prakasam Dt., v. Kandi Lakshmi Devi, Krishna and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Prakasam Dt., v. Kandi Lakshmi Devi, Krishna and 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boya Eswar, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Vallam Muni Prabhakar and Another Vs the State of A.P.

Appala Sree Ramulu , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Immidisetty Ramaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Bhagyamma Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Premi Gopi Vs the State of A.P.