Dismissed

Bomma Venkata Satish Reddy , B.v.Satish Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC2 Aug 2012CRLP/3763/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a revision petition challenging a maintenance award of Rs.1,000/- per month. The court examined the land holdings of both spouses and determined the award was proper despite the wife's means. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.3763 of 2009, associated miscellaneous petitions, and pending matters were dismissed.

Bomma Venkata Satish Reddy , B.v.Satish Reddy, Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3763 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash order dated 04.05.2009 passed in Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2008 (Crl.R.P.) on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, and further to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of order dated 26.03.2008 in M.C.No.34 of 2003 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

¶5

2. The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in the Crl.R.P. and respondent in the Maintenance Case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the Maintenance Case.

¶6

3. The respondent is the husband and the petitioner is the wife. The petitioner filed M.C.No.34 of 2003 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. On contest, it was allowed and maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month was granted to her with effect from 26.03.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the respondenthusband preferred the Crl.R.P., which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal order, the respondent-husband preferred the present Criminal Petition.

¶7

4. It is a case of the respondent-husband neglecting and rejecting the wife.

¶8

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has contended that the petitioner-wife has got more than Acs.2.00 of land as borne out by the record and she has ample means to maintain herself and awarding the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards her maintenance by the

¶9

enquiry Court and confirmation of the same by the Revision Court are not proper. He has not contended anything about the question of negligence and desertion of the petitioner-wife. Therefore, it is deemed that that point is conceded. Hence, the question of means of the petitioner-wife coupled with the question of award in the MC are only to be considered here.

¶10

6. As borne out by the record, the respondent-husband has got more than Acs.10.00 of land whereas the petitioner-wife has got more than Acs.2.00 of land. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has in fact admitted that he got Acs.8.00 of land. Any wife is entitled to maintenance subject to her status and also status of her husband. In that view of the matter, awarding the amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the petitioner-wife is proper. Thereby, the plea of the respondent-husband is not tenable.

¶11

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶12

_________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶13

2^nd August 2012 RRB

Bomma Venkata Satish Reddy , B.v.Satish Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bomma Venkata Satish Reddy , B.v.Satish Reddy, v. The State of A.P.

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

Boggavarapu Gokula Krishna, (A15) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gaddam Ram Reddy Vs The Statement of Andhra Pradesh

R.Ramalingaraju, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Abdulla, Vs The State of A.P.

Bennuri Amarnath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Manohar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh