Partly allowed

S. Kiran Kumar, v. G. Sreedevi

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013CRLRC/1603/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner husband sought revision to cancel interim maintenance order of Rs.8,000/month granted by Magistrate. Abating main maintenance case, this High Court reduced interim amount to Rs.6,000/month and directed payment of arrears proportionately until main disposal.

What did the court decide?

Order on interim maintenance in D.V.C. modified; Petitioner directed to pay Rs.6,000/month instead of Rs.8,000/month and arrears proportionately.

S. Kiran Kumar, Vs G. Sreedevi — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1603 of 2013

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerhusband and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondentwife.

¶4

This criminal revision case is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.755 of 2013 in D.V.C.No.34 of 2013 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance to the first respondent at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. Initially, this Court stayed the operation of the order on condition of the petitioner paying 50% of the interim maintenance amount awarded by the learned Magistrate. Now, the main criminal revision case itself came to be disposed of finally.

¶5

The admitted facts are that the petitioner is an employee in WIPRO company and he is getting salary of Rs.50,000/-per month, whereas the first respondent is a practicing advocate having herself enrolled in the year 2007. The learned Magistrate took the view that though there is no evidence as to the income of the first respondent as an advocate, she must have some earnings. Despite the said fact, took the view that even though she was getting some income as a practicing advocate, she is entitled for maintenance as the said amount may not be sufficient for her livelihood. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month. The said order is challenged in the present revision.

¶6

Obviously no oral evidence was let in before the learned Magistrate in the maintenance case and the learned Magistrate disposed of the application seeking interim maintenance basing on admitted facts. Since the issue relating to the maintenance is pending

¶7

before the learned Magistrate for consideration in the main D.V.C., considering the facts, namely that the petitioner as an employee in WIPRO is getting Rs.50,000/- as salary and the first respondent is a practicing advocate and as such she would get some income, I am of the view that till the disposal of the D.V.C., an amount of Rs.6,000/(Rupees six thousand only) can be granted to the first respondent towards interim maintenance. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is made clear that the petitioner is also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance in the same proportion. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly disposed of.

¶8

_________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J.

¶9

19^th December 2013, Rns

S. Kiran Kumar, v. G. Sreedevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Kiran Kumar, v. G. Sreedevi

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

Chennupalli Lakshman Sarath Vs the State of A.P.

N.Penchala Subbaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gourigalla Savitri, Vs TheState ofAndhar Pradesh

Alladi Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dandigalla Swapna Vs The State

Preethi Goyal Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh