Dismissed

Kasanakurthi U.M. Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Sept 2014CRLP/9892/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held fact-disputed issues of income capability require trial and refused interference with interlocutory orders except to direct expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose O.P. No.1225 of 2013 within 6 months.

Kasanakurthi U.M. Veerabhadra Rao, Vs The State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9892 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 19.06.2014 passed in M.P.No.45 of 2011 in O.P.No.1225 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam.

¶5

The facts in issue in brief are as follows:

¶6

The 2^nd respondent herein filed O.P.No.1225 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court at Visakhapatnam under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month along with an application for interim maintenance. Pending the said O.P., the trial Court passed an order granting interim maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Petition.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the petitioner has lost his job pursuant to a report given by the 2^nd respondent and, as such, it would be difficult for him to pay the amount as he has no source of income.

¶8

The issue as to whether the petitioner has no source of income or is unable to pay interim maintenance is a matter which needs to be gone into during the trial, more particularly, when the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Therefore, interference with the order passed in an interlocutory application would not arise. Further, the amount awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be on a higher side and excessive warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶9

For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is

¶10

directed dispose of the O.P.No.1225 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this criminal petition, shall also stand closed.

¶12

__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 9^th September, 2014 cbs

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶14

Criminal Petition No. 9892 of 2014

¶15

9^th September, 2014

¶16

cbs

Kasanakurthi U.M. Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasanakurthi U.M. Veerabhadra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

The Regional Manager, Vs Kalindindi Eswari

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yeraci Venkateswara Reddy

Soyam Bikshmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Sirajuddin Vs The State of Telangana

Apsrtc Vs Ambipuri Suresh

Atluri Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of a. P