Dismissed

G. Venkataramana v. G. Venkateswara Rao

Telangana HC28 Apr 2010CRP/959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an interim maintenance application. The Court held that since the main Petition is already pending before a Division Bench in appeal, no interim maintenance is warranted, upholding the trial Court's order directed disposal.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition dismissed; trial Court directed to dispose of F.C.O.P. No.271 of 2009 within three months; No costs.

G. Venkataramana Vs G. Venkateswara Rao — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 959 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.1.2010 in I.A. No.835 of 2009 in F.C. O.P. No. 271 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance from her husband during pendency of the O.P., was dismissed.

¶5

Admittedly, the petitioner and her children filed earlier O.P. No.19 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad, against the respondent, wherein maintenance was granted to them. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal A.S. No.1188 of 2004 before this Court, and a Division Bench of this Court granted stay on condition of the respondent paying Rs.1,500/- per month to the petitioners and her children collectively. Subsequently, on a vacate stay petition filed by the petitioner, the interim order was modified enhancing the amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1,700/- per month. Accordingly, the respondent has been paying the said maintenance amount. Therefore, when a Division Bench of this Court ceased of the matter with regard to claim of maintenance by the petitioner/wife, she again filed present F.C.O.P. No.271 of 2009 for maintenance and made Interlocutory Application No.835 of 2009 therein for grant of interim maintenance, which was dismissed by the

¶6

trial Court by the impugned order. In view of the fact that the petitioner had already filed an O.P. earlier for maintenance, which was disposed of, and the appeal filed against the order of the trial Court is pending before a Division Bench of this Court, it is not desirable to grant any interim maintenance to the petitioner. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court.

¶7

However, it is stated that the O.P. is coming for respondent side evidence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the F.C. O.P. No.271 of 2009 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶8

The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the above direction. No costs.

¶9

--------------------(K.C.Bhanu, J.)

¶10

28.04.2010 DRK

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 959 of 2010

¶13

28.04.2010

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 959 of 2010

¶16

28.04.2010

¶17

Between:

¶18

G.Venkataramana …Petitioner And

¶19

G.Venkateswara Rao

¶20

…Respondent

G. Venkataramana v. G. Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkataramana v. G. Venkateswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The A.P. State Cooperative bank Limited, Vs P.N. Vijayalakshmi Devi

Smt.Venigandla Rajyalakshmi , Raji Vs Venigandla Venkata Ramanjaneyulu

Girish Khatri Vs Pramod Kumar Gupta

Vinod Kumar Biyani Vs Mrs. Sangita Kabra

Vinod Kumar Biyani Vs Mrs. Sangita Kabra

Sri Setti Bheemeswara Jagannadha Rao, Vs Sri Gopisetti Govardhana Rao