Petitioner challenged interim maintenance orders of Family Court. Held that interim nature precludes interference; dismissed revision at admission stage directing Family Court to conclude pending order within two months.
Revision dismissed at admission; direction to Family Court to dispose O.P. within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.1725 of 2009
Dated:1 4 th October, 2009.
Between:
Bora Govindarajulu
….Petitioner
and
1. Bora Jyothi & Ors.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.1725 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 15.09.2009 passed in I.A.No.433 of 2009 in O.P.No.563 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court granted interim maintenance to the 1st respondent herein at the rate of 2,000/- per month and to the respondents 2 and 3 herein at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each per month.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the respondents 1 to 3 herein have not placed any material to show that the petitioner is earning Rs.15,000/- per
month and therefore, the quantum of amount fixed by the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court to the respondents 1 to 3 herein is on high side and the same is required to be reduced.
4. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Neither party chooses to adduce any evidence, either ocular or documentary. The maintenance O.P. is stated to be pending. The order passed by the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court is only an interim arrangement to see that the respondents 1 to 3 receive some amount. Since the amount awarded by the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court is only in respect of interim maintenance, I am of the view that the same is not required to be disturbed pending the O.P. It is suffice to direct the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court to dispose of O.P.No.563 of 2008 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order subject to the parties extending co-operation to dispose of the same.
5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date: 14th October, 2009. cs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance awarded in the underlying civil proceeding requires to be reduced in this criminal revision.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim maintenance order of the Family Court at the admission stage of the revision.
Bora Govindarajulu
Bora Jyothi & Ors.
B.Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
