Dismissed

G.Shivaji v. The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Telangana HC10 Apr 2014CRLP/511/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition challenging an order regarding interim stay conditions on maintenance, the High Court held that the matter should be agitated as a main revision before the Sessions Judge. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed with a direction to the Sessions Judge to dispose of the pending main revision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file main revision; Sessions Judge directed to dispose of Crl.R.P.No. 47 of 2010 within three months.

G.Shivaji Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P. — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 511 OF 2012

¶6

Between: G. Shivaji … Petitioner V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Md. Saleem Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor

¶8

The Court made the following: [order follows]

¶9

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶10

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 511 OF 2012

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed challenging the order in Crl.MP.No. 563 of 2011 in Crl.RP.No. 47 of 2010 dated 20/12/2011 on

¶13

the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

¶14

2. Heard Advocate for petitioner.

¶15

3. It is submitted that the petitioner herein filed Crl.RP.No. 47 of 2010 challenging the orders of IV-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, in MC.No. 14 of 2007 and that he filed a petition for stay of M.C. order in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted interim stay by imposing condition to deposit half of the maintenance granted by the trial court, so far as the wife is concerned, who is second respondent herein. Advocate for petitioner submitted that the said condition is complied with.

¶16

4. On a perusal of the material, I am of the view that the petitioner can as well agitate of sections raised herein in the main Revision before learned Sessions Judge.

¶17

5. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions of

¶18

Advocate for Petitioner, I feel that the learned Sessions Judge is to be

¶19

directed to dispose of the main Revision within a stipulated time, if not, disposed off and that would meet the ends of justice.

¶20

6. In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed with a direction to the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Chittoor to dispose off Crl.R.P.No. 47 of 2010 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is not disposed off.

¶21

_____________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.

¶22

10/04/2014 I s L

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 511 OF 2012

¶25

Circulation No. 64 Date:10/04/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

G.Shivaji v. The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shivaji v. The State of a.P., rep. by its P.P.

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

Vasa Thirupathaiah Vs M/s. Transport Corporation of India Limited

D.Narayana Rao, Vs Vepari Mohana Rao

Avvula Saidulu, Vs G. Venkateshwar Rao

S.Sambaiah Vs The State of A.P.

Abdul Khaled Siddiqui Vs The State of Ap.

Angam Chinna Venkateswarlu Vs Y.V. Shilpa Kalyani