Dismissed

B.Satyanarayana v. B.Srilatha

Telangana HC11 Jul 2011CRLRC/554/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision against an order committing the petitioner to civil prison for non-payment of maintenance arrears. The court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of salary attachment, leaving a balance of unpaid arrears justifying the commitment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed and the interim suspension stands vacated.

B.Satyanarayana Vs B.Srilatha — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.554 OF 2011

¶5

Between: B.Satyanarayana

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

A n d

¶8

B.Srilatha and two others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.R.C.No.554 OF 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 28.01.2011 in M.P.No.457 of 2010 in M.C.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein it was ordered as follows:

¶13

“Petitioner absent. Respondent present. No representation. Payment not reported. Respondent has not paid the arrears of Rs.84,000/-. Commit the respondent to prison for a period of (8) eight months. The detention commences from the date of arrest.”

¶14

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶15

3. It is not disputed that the petitioner herein is the husband of first respondent and father of second respondent. On an application filed by Respondents 1 and 2 seeking maintenance in M.C.No.2 of 2005, the Additional Family Court, by order dated 17.02.2006, directed

¶16

the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/per month each to the wife and daughter. As the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amounts regularly, the respondents filed an application M.P.No.457 of 2010 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., seeking enforcement of the order granting maintenance. According to the respondents, the petitioner was in arrears for a period of 42 months from 17.10.2006 to 17.04.2010 in a sum of Rs.84,000/-. It is stated by the respondents that he has paid Rs.36,000/- on one occasion under the receipt dated 03.12.2010 and Rs.11,000/- on one occasion and Rs.5,000/- on another occasion, making up a total amount of Rs.52,000/-. The respondents did not dispute payment of the said amount of Rs.52,000/-. According to the petitioner, in Crl.M.P.No.932 of 2007 an order of attachment was issued against his salary to recover a sum of Rs.18,000/and the same is being recovered.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the salary attachment order has not been

¶18

given effect to and no amount of the salary is being attached and credited into the Court in the account of M.C.No.2 of 2005.

¶19

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any material to show that any portion of the salary was attached in pursuance of the order dated 07.12.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.932 of 2007 and the same was credited to the account of M.C.No.2 of 2005.

¶20

In the absence of any such material to show that the salary of the petitioner was attached and recovered by way of installments towards the satisfaction of the order passed in the maintenance case M.C.No.2 of 2005, the said plea of the petitioner that his salary is under attachment, remains unsubstantiated.

¶21

6. The learned counsel for the respondents filed a calculation memo stating that from the date of the order i.e., 17.02.2006 till now the maintenance is due for 65 months in a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-

¶22

at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month and another sum of Rs.21,000/- is due towards educational expenses granted in the divorce OP at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for the education of the child in November, 2009 and the total amount payable is Rs.1,51,000/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.52,000/-, which is already paid, still there a balance of Rs.99,000/-.

¶23

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any calculation memo to show that the amount was paid according to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the present application M.C.No.457 of 2007 is filed only in respect of arrears for 42 months, the arrears that have accrued subsequently or the arrears, if any, due under the orders granted in the divorce O.P cannot be taken into consideration in the present proceedings. Even if the amount of Rs.21,000/said to be due under the order passed in the divorce OP and the subsequent arrears that fell due subsequent to the filing of the present application M.P.No.457 of 2010 are not taken into consideration in the present proceedings, still as against the claim of arrears in a sum of Rs.84,000/- the petitioner is shown to have paid only Rs.52,000/- and still there is a balance of Rs.32,000/-. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner has paid away the entire arrears. Therefore, he is liable to be committed to the civil prison.

¶24

The impugned order, directing the petitioner to be committed to the civil prison for non-payment of the arrears of maintenance, does not, therefore, call for any interference.

¶25

8 In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Interim suspension stands vacated.

¶26

_____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶27

11^th July, 2011 Lrkm.

B.Satyanarayana v. B.Srilatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Satyanarayana v. B.Srilatha

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

Gundreddi Laxma Reddy, Vs P.Sudhakar Reddy

Somaluri Naga Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ms.G.Vijayalaxmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Sai Leela Educational Society Vs G.Satyanarayana

Kusuma Chaitanya Mohan Vs The State of A.P.

Kusuma Ugavara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh