Dismissed

Pothuraju Rajeswari v. Pothu Raju Bujjaiah

Telangana HC20 Jan 2010CRP/5092/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged the District Judge's order partially granting interim legal expenses but rejecting a claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower court's reliance on a prior compromise.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.

Pothuraju Rajeswari Vs Pothu Raju Bujjaiah — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5092 of 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This revision is directed against order dated 17.08.2009 in I.A.No.178 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District.

¶5

Petitioner is the wife and respondent is the husband. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.80 of 2007 seeking divorce and in the said O.P. the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), seeking grant of interim maintenance to her children and for legal expenses. The said application was resisted by the respondent. The Court below, having heard both sides and perused the material available on record and having regard to the compromise entered between the parties in M.C.No.1 of 1991 on 30.04.1996, partly allowed the I.A. by awarding Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses and dismissed the rest of the claim.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the compromise arrived between the parties on 30.04.1996 in M.C.No.1 of 1991 is nothing to do with the present claim. Since the respondent filed the O.P. for divorce, the compromise entered into in the earlier maintenance case will not come in her way for claiming interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act.

¶7

Be that as it may, the Court below looked into the compromise arrived at between the parties in M.C.No.1 of 1991 dated 30.04.1996, whereunder the respondent paid Rs.31,000/- to his wife and children towards maintenance and therefore, rejected the claim for maintenance.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the present application for awarding of interim maintenance, while granting legal expenses.

¶9

The Civil Revision Petition, which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from working out remedies as available under law in the pending O.P. before the Court below including grant of permanent alimony etc., No costs.

¶10

________________ (C.V. RAMULU, J)

¶11

20^th January, 2010 GHN

Pothuraju Rajeswari v. Pothu Raju Bujjaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothuraju Rajeswari v. Pothu Raju Bujjaiah

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

Electro Homeopathic Medical Association of A.P. rep. by its Vs Indian Medical Council rep. by its Secretary

P. Narayana Reddy Vs Sri P.Bapu Reddy, Deputy Superintending of Police

Smt.Vlbt Sundari Vs The District Educational Officer

Shaik Rasool Saheb Vs Sri G Sai Prasad

B. Linga Reddy Vs Sri Rajeswar Tiwari, Government of Andhra Pradesh

Thotempudi Krishnaiah, Vs Krantilal Dande, The District Collector