Dismissed

K.Nizamuddin v. Kum. Kailagar Nooha Maheen

Telangana HC14 Jul 2010CRLRC/1270/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision by a father challenging an order granting interim maintenance to a minor child. The Court held that the lower court was justified in granting maintenance despite the absence of evidence adduced by the child's mother. Relied on a precedent holding that Section 125 proceedings should not be dismissed for non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. The order dated 30.06.2010 granting maintenance of Rs. 1,500 per month to the minor child was upheld.

K.Nizamuddin Vs Kum. Kailagar Nooha Maheen — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT:

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1270 OF 2010

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K. Nizamuddin S/o. K. Jamaluddin

¶8

…. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Kum. Kalaigar Nooha Maheen D/o. K. Naizamuddin and another

¶11

…. Respondents

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1270 OF 2010

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This revision petition is sought to be filed by the father against order dated 30-06-2010 passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in M.C. No.5 of 2009 by which maintenance of Rs.1,500/per month was granted to the first respondent / minor child. There is no dispute about the petitioner being father of the first respondent. There is separation between the petitioner and his wife by way of divorce.

¶16

2. Admittedly, the first respondent is residing with the mother. In the lower Court neither petitioner let in any oral or documentary evidence nor any oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the first respondent. This Court in ABDUL WAHED v. HAFEEZA BEGUM AND OTHERS^[1] held that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., cannot be dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner is minor child. The said minor petitioner is being represented by her mother. Simply because the child’s mother

¶17

did not let in any evidence, it cannot be said that the first respondent did not make out any ground for claiming maintenance. The first respondent being a minor is incapable of getting any income. Therefore, the lower Court is perfectly justified in granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the first respondent, which amount works out at Rs.50/- per day.

¶18

3. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

__________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 14, 2010 KTL

¶20

[1] 1987 CRL.L.J.726

K.Nizamuddin v. Kum. Kailagar Nooha Maheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nizamuddin v. Kum. Kailagar Nooha Maheen

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Dayakar, Vs Anti Corruption Department

B.Shashidhar, Vs The State , Chatrinaka Police Station, Chatrinaka , Hyderaba

Syed Khaja Ayazuddin Vs Mrs. Naseernnisa Begum

Kotha Govinda Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

State Bank of Hyderabad, Overeseas branch, Vs State of A.P.

Sri Navundru Sridhar Rao, IPS Vs Smt. Navundru Sharmila