Disposed

N. Sujatha v. B. Vinod Kumar

Telangana HC17 Jul 2013CRP/2563/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the petitioner challenged the Family Court's award of interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month, alleging it was too low given the respondent's income. The revision bench rejected the plea, held that the lower court exercised its discretion correctly, and directed the court to conclude the trial within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; directive to lower court to dispose of the main O.P. within four weeks.

N. Sujatha Vs B. Vinod Kumar — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2563 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 17.07.2013

¶4

Between:
N.Sujatha	.. Petitioner
And
B.Vinod Kumar	.. Respondent

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2563 OF 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The revision petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.253 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. The respondent herein filed the said O.P. seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Pending the said proceedings, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.26 of 2013 claiming interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month apart from legal expenses of Rs.20,000/-. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by order dated 20.02.2013 disposed of the said application awarding interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month payable on or before 10^th of every month. The said order is assailed before this Court in the present Revision Petition contending that the interim maintenance granted is too low and that the Court below committed an error in not taking into consideration the fact that the respondent is drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under Revision. The said order came to be passed by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and assigning valid reasons therefor. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the Court below in fixing the quantum of interim maintenance cannot be held to be erroneous. That apart, it is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the trial in the O.P. has already been concluded and the O.P. now stands posted to 06.08.2013 for

¶10

hearing. Therefore, I am not inclined to upset the order at this stage on any ground whatsoever.

¶11

Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the main O.P. following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.

¶12

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶13

____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶14

Date: 17.07.2013 Ivd

N. Sujatha v. B. Vinod Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Sujatha v. B. Vinod Kumar

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

Annam Hari Rama Krishna Vs Badeti Dhanalakshmi

Vadlamudi Purnachandra Rao Vs Ami Raja Rama Rao

Chukka Lakshmi Nancharamma Vs Karry Venkata Rami Reddy

M/S Frobelian Education Society Vs P.Parasmal Jain

Mohd Sarwar Hussain, Vs Baqir Ali Khan

Mohd Gouse Vs Mohd Haytat