Dismissed

B.Papa Rao v. B.Bastanamma Chitti

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Sept 2022CRLP/1979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order in a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging maintenance proceedings. The court rejected the petitioner's plea of res judicata, holding that since the prior divorce petition was dismissed and a subsequent petition was withdrawn, the fresh petition for maintenance is maintainable. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the maintenance proceedings was dismissed.

B.Papa Rao Vs B.Bastanamma Chitti — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1979 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.191 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada against the petitioner.

¶4

Heard. Perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and 1^st respondent was performed on 05.02.1991 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of 1^st respondent gave Rs.3,00,000/to the petitioner towards dowry. After the marriage, 1^st respondent joined the petitioner at her in-laws’ house, Vijayawada. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one male child on 26.08.1992 and a female child on 30.10.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner harassed 1^st respondent for money and directed her to sell away the house, which was given to her by her parents. Surprisingly, the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.426 of 2001 before the Court below seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. While the matter stood thus, 1^st respondent herein filed a petition in

¶5

I.A.No.486 of 2004 in O.P.No.426 of 2001 for grant of interim

¶6

¶7

Kumar and she was granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to them. On 22.07.2009, the said O.P.No.426 of 2001 was dismissed on merits and thereafter, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

¶8

1^st respondent submits that thereafter also, the attitude of the petitioner herein has not changed inspite of several efforts made by 1^st respondent. There is no source of income to her and she has no capacity to maintain 2^nd respondent as the completed her Intermeidate course and admitted in Graduation. It is also submitted by 1^st respondent herein that the petitioner is working as Assistant Divisional Manager, APGENCO, Bhupalapally, Warangal and drawing salary more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and having flat at Enikepadu and also having another flat at Gollapudi (G-5), Lakshmi Ganesh Residency, Telecom Colony and getting rent of Rs.20,000/-. For the aforesaid reasons, she claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month each.

¶9

The petitioner herein filed counter affidavit in M.C.No.191 of 2016 denying all the allegations that are made against him and stating that 1^st respondent has got immovable properties and the value of the property would be more than Rs.80,00,000/-. He also stated that 1^st

¶10

respondent is working in a private company and drawing

¶11

¶12

earlier, 1^st respondent filed a petition in O.P.No.426 of 2001 for grant of interim maintenance and was granted Rs.2,000/- per month each. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner claimed that the respondents herein are not entitled for maintenance.

¶13

The Court below, pending disposal of the Maintenance Case, granted interim maintenance to respondents 1 and 2 herein @ Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/per month, vide order dated 24.08.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.421 of 2017.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents were granted interim maintenance as per order in I.A.No.486 of 2004 in O.P.No.426 of 2001, a petition filed by the petitioner seeking divorce, and later, the said O.P. was dismissed. It is his further contention that the respondents herein filed O.P.No.684 of 2004 before the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking maintenance and the said was transferred to the Court below and renumbered as O.P.No.49 of 2008, and the said case was withdrawn without reserving any right or liberty to espouse the case, and hence, the impugned proceedings in M.C.No.191 of 2016 are not maintainable as the same is hit by principle of res judicata and doctrine of waiver .

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel for

¶16

respondents 1 and 2 contended that the principle of

¶17

¶18

present case, as the respondents withdrew O.P.No.49 of 2008 in view of grant of interim maintenance in I.A.No.486 of 2004 in O.P.No.426 of 2001. But, as the said O.P.No.426 of 2001 was dismissed by the Court below, the respondents

¶19

1 and 2 were constrained the present M.C.

¶20

Admittedly, respondent No.1 is wife of the

¶21

petitioner and respondent No.2 is his daughter. Originally, they were granted interim maintenance as per order in I.A.No.486 of 2004 in O.P.No.426 of 2001, a petition filed by the petitioner seeking divorce. Later, the said O.P. was dismissed on 22.07.2009. The respondents 1 and 2 herein also filed O.P.No.684 of 2004 before the Family Court, Hyderabad seeking maintenance and the said case was transferred to the Court below and renumbered as O.P.No.49 of 2008. The said case was withdrawn by them in view of grant of interim maintenance in I.A.No.486 of 2004 in O.P.No.426 of 2001. However, as the said O.P.No.426 of 2001 was dismissed by the Court below, the respondents filed the present M.C.No.191 of 2016 before the Court below seeking maintenance. Hence, there is no infirmity. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present M.C. is barred by the principle of resjudicata or doctrine of waiver, is not tenable. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits.

¶22

In view of the same, the Criminal petition is

¶23

¶24

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal

¶25

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶26

_____________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶27

Date: 07.09.2022 KLPD

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

¶29

¶30

Writ Petition.No.462 of 2012

¶31

Dated : 23.09.2022

¶32

rpd

B.Papa Rao v. B.Bastanamma Chitti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Papa Rao v. B.Bastanamma Chitti

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

P Umamaheshwara Reddy Vs State of Ap

G.v.Naga Durga Prasad Vs P.Rami Reddy

Rayala Raja Rao Vs T.Nageswara Rao

Sri Kotamreddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothikuchi Hanumantha Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddi Appala Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh