Dismissed

Arupathi Anand Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC21 Feb 2012CRLP/1734/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the learned Magistrate was justified in inferring paternity of the minor child based on the bonafide certificate and witness evidence. The order granting maintenance to the minor daughter was found to be legal and without irregularity, warranting no interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.1734 of 2012 was dismissed; the impugned order upheld.

Arupathi Anand Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.1734 of 2012

¶3

(Dated : 21-02-2012)

¶4

Between:

¶5

Arupathi Anand Kumar S/o late Veerappa Ranga Reddy District

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

A n d State of AP, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP And others

¶8

….Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶10

Criminal Petition No.1734 of 2012

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the respondents in M.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi to quash the order dated 21-5-2010 passed therein, as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2010 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

2(a). Respondents 2 and 3 herein filed M.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi, Ranga Reddy District claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively. They claim that they are the wife and daughter of the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed counter in M.C.No.27 of 2008 disputing of his marrying the 2^nd respondent herein and birth of the 3^rd respondent out of the wedlock. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-wife, she got herself examined as PW-1 and examined two more witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and marked Ex.P-1–Bonafide certificate. On behalf of the petitioner-husband, he got himself examined as RW-1 besides examining one more witness as RW-2 and marked two documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2.

¶14

2(b) The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to

¶15

the conclusion that the 2^nd respondent herein failed to establish her marriage. However, the birth of the 3^rd respondent herein out of the association between the 2^nd respondent herein and the petitioner has been established. With this finding, the learned Magistrate proceeded to grant maintenance to the 3^rd respondent herein,( i.e., daughter) at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of the petition, by order dated 21-5-2010.

¶16

2(c) The petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2010 on the file of VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), at Vikarabad, assailing the order dated 21-5-2010. The learned Additional District Judge, on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order passed in M.C.No.27 of 2008, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the revision, by order dated 17-01-2012. Hence, this revision.

¶17

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order passed in M.C.No.27 of 2008, as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2010.

¶18

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent taking advantage of the similarity of the name of the petitioner claimed maintenance for herself and her daughter, who is the third respondent herein. A further submission has been made that the learned Magistrate having accepted of there being no legal marriage between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein committed error in granting maintenance to the 3^rd respondent who claims to be the daughter of the petitioner.

¶19

5. I have gone through the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pargi in M.C.No.27 of 2008. Reliance has been placed on Ex.P-1-Bonafide certificate to infer that the petitioner herein is the father of the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has been examined as PW-1 and she states on oath that the 3^rd respondent has been born out of her association with the petitioner. Her statement has been corroborated by two witnesses who have been examined as PWs.1 and 2. Such is the evidence brought on record, the learned Magistrate is justified in inferring that the 3^rd respondent has been born out of the association between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.27 of 2008 as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2010, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶20

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶21

**_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.21-02-2012 RAR*

Arupathi Anand Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arupathi Anand Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Tanikonda Chiranjeevi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pallapati Ananda Rao Vs The state of Ap., Rep.byits

Thota Sri Rama Krishna Murty Vs State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Majji Parvathamma, Vs Majji Rama Murthy Naidu

Smt. Nittala Kamala (A-2), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemuri Laxmaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh