Dismissed

G.Babu, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC19 Nov 2012CRLRC/861/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision challenging maintenance award for 2nd respondent (maid servant earning Rs.500/month). Court upheld trial Court's award of Rs.750/month effective Nov 2012 but ordered arrears paid at Rs.500/month in instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.750/month maintenance from Nov 2012; arrears at Rs.500/month in five instalments starting Dec 2012.

G.Babu, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.861 OF 2005

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 20.4.2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case)-cum-Additional Family Court, Hyderabad in M.C.No.137 of 2004 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the 2^nd respondent at the rate of Rs.750/- per month from the date of application i.e., 5.7.2004 and also to pay the same in future on or before 10^th of every succeeding month.

¶4

On 11.8.2005, this Court granted interim stay of the judgment of the Court below subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits the maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the date of the judgment passed by the trial Court. It is also made clear that the arrears shall be paid within a period of six months and thereafter the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs.500/- per month by 10^th of every succeeding month.

¶5

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶6

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent is having sufficient means and she is earning money and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance.

¶7

There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The judgment under revision goes to show that the 2^nd respondent is working as maid servant and earning Rs.500/- per month. The amount being earned by the 2^nd respondent is not sufficient to meet her needs. Considering the same and the capacity of the petitioner, the trial Court awarded maintenance at the rate of 750/per month. Taking into consideration the present day cost of living, this Court is of the view that the maintenance awarded by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. But however, the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.750/- per

¶8

month from the month of November, 2012. The arrears, if any, shall be paid at the rate of Rs.500/- per month as ordered by this Court vide interim order dated 11.8.2005 from the date of judgment of the trial Court till October, 2012, in five equal monthly instalments commencing from the month of December, 2012.

¶9

With the above direction, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________ Justice Raja Elango

¶11

Dated: 19.11.2012 Nn.

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶13

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.861 OF 2005

¶14

19.11.2012 Nn.

G.Babu, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Babu, v. The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

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

Naguluru Sriramulu, Vs Kogili Sugunamma, (A-2)

Puvvada Venkateswara Rao, Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Yalavarthi Murali Krishna Vs Sri Shaik Khaji Babu

M/s. Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Ltd., rep. by Sr. Executive Vs M/s. P.J. Agro Tech Ltd.

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Thaddi Venkataramana, Kapu by Caste

Rayala Sreenivasa Rao Vs Namburi Nirmala