Dismissed

V.Marthand Goud v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC24 Feb 2012CRLRC/1644/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the court was satisfied that a father cannot be absolved from liability to maintain his minor daughter despite a pending custody petition filed by him. The government petition was dismissed, upholding the maintenance order subject to the outcome of the custody suit.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the maintenance order of the trial court was upheld subject to pending custody proceedings.

V.Marthand Goud Vs The State of Andhra… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1644 of 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner herein is admittedly the natural father of the respondent baby V.Bhavani. M.Yadaiah, the maternal grand father of baby V.Bhavani, filed M.C.No.74 of 2004 i.e. the maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming a sum of Rs.2,000/per month towards maintenance for the minor on the plea that her father neglected to maintain her.

¶5

2. The mother of minor admittedly died on 03.12.2002, but it is not necessary to go into the cause of her death. The trial court i.e. the Court of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, which dealt with the above maintenance case, after considering the matter and the evidence of P.W.1 the maternal grand father of the minor and R.W.1 the father of minor, by its order dated 22.07.2004, held that the minor is entitled to maintenance from her father. It is challenging that order the father of the minor has filed this revision.

¶6

3. Initially when the matter has been taken up an adjournment has been sought for, but subsequently Smt. B.Samanthakamani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner’s counsel in the course of arguments, invited my attention to the grounds of revision and certain documents also. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the father of the minor and in such circumstances it follows that he has got an obligation to maintain his minor daughter. However it is his plea that he also filed O.P.No.471 of 2004 in the Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking custody of the

¶7

minor, but it is reported that the said OP is still pending. The custody of the minor is with her maternal grand father and the rights relating to custody of the minor have to be ultimately decided by the said Family Court in O.P.No.471 of 2004, but on that ground the petitioner who is the father cannot be absolved from his liability to provide maintenance to his minor daughter.

¶8

4. As matters stand, the evidence on record and the order of the trial court would show that there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the present impugned order granting maintenance to the minor. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. The maintenance order granted by the trial court shall however be subject to any other proceedings including the result of O.P.No.471 of 2004 which may have the effect of superseding the present maintenance order.

¶9

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶10

24^th February, 2012 CVRK

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVISHANKAR

¶12

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1644 of 2004

¶13

24^th February, 2012

¶14

CVRK

V.Marthand Goud v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Marthand Goud v. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by Public Prosecutor

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

Gorantla Bhaskara Rao, Vs The State of a.P., through Si of Police, P.S. Narsaraopet

Bathala Venkata Sivudu, Vs Gunireddy Srinivasulu Reddy

Rasheed Ahmed Junaid Vs Bombay Mercantile Co.Op Bank Ltd.

P. Uma Maheswar, Vs State, through Govt. of India

Kotipalli Mallikarjuna Rao Vs The State Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Mandala Balraj, Vs The State of a.P., through Sho.