Disposed

Ch.Sadanand Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Mar 2016CRLP/13007/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged an order confirming a maintenance award. The court admitted the petition and passed interim orders directing an equal share of maintenance payments before finally disposing of the petition with directions to the trial court for disposal within a specific timeline.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay half interim maintenance; Trial Court to dispose main case by 10.07.2016.

Ch.Sadanand Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.13007 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This Criminal petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 23.7.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.289 of 2014 whereby the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabat at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District in Crl.M.P.No.192 of 2014 in DVC No.47 of 2013 dated 21.3.2014 directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month to second respondent and Rs.8,000/- per month to third respondent towards maintenance.

¶5

2. This Court on 27.10.2014 while admitting the Criminal Petition passed the interim order in Crl.P.M.P.No.13537 of 2014 as under:

¶6

“I have perused the material on record. There shall be interim stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the entire arrears of maintenance awarded to respondents 2 and 3 within a period of eight weeks from today and on his continuing to pay 50% of the amount respectively, awarded to respondents 2 and 3 every month without fail until further orders. …”

¶7

3. Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶8

4. There is no dispute as to the relationship between the parties. In view of the same and in view of the pendency of the main case, without expression any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition case is disposed of with the following direction:

¶9

I) The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to the 2^nd respondent and Rs.4,000/- per month to the 3^rd respondent towards interim maintenance on or before 10^th of every succeeding month till disposal of the above DVC.;

¶10

II) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the above DVC on or before 10^th July, 2016, without being influenced by the above order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶12

23^rd March, 2016 Tsr

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2110 of 2015

¶15

08.10.2015

¶16

Ch.Sadanand Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Sadanand Goud v. The State of Telangana

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

Bariki Gopal, Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary

Faisal Bin Hassan, Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

Gadi Mutyala Rao, Vs Dist. Collector, Krishna Dist.

Giri Kavitha Vs Redabothu Ramya

M.Prabhakar Vs the State of A.P. and Another

S. Bhasker Rao Vs Yanampally Narsaiah