Partly allowed

Md. Ibrahim Ali v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Mar 2016CRLP/3445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge disposed of a Criminal Petition challenging an interim maintenance order. Without expressing an opinion on merits, the Court fixed lower interim maintenance amounts of Rs.1,750/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,500/- per month for the minor son, directing the trial Court to dispose of the main case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.1,750/- per month to wife and Rs.1,500/- per month to son as interim maintenance along with arrears.

Md. Ibrahim Ali Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3445 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 12.02.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1780 of 2015 in M.C.No.338 of 2015 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad.

¶5

2. The 2^nd respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed the above M.C. on her behalf and on behalf of her son-respondent No.3 against the petitioner, claiming maintenance. Along with the above M.C., the 2^nd respondent-wife also filed the above Crl.M.P. seeking to grant interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to her and Rs.10,000/- p.m., to her son-3^rd respondent. The learned trial Judge allowed the petition directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- p.m., to the 2^nd respondent and Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No.3 from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 10.12.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-husband filed the present petition.

¶6

3. Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶7

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 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following direction:

¶8

I) The petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,750/- per month to the

¶9

2^nd respondent and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No.3 towards

¶10

interim maintenance on or before 10^th of every succeeding month till disposal of the above M.C.;

¶11

II) The petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance at the rate fixed by this Court from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 10.12.2015, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

¶12

III) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the above M.C., as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the above order.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶15

Dated: 15^th March, 2016 Nn

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3445 of 2016

¶18

15.3.2016

¶19

Md. Ibrahim Ali v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ibrahim Ali 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

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna, Vs The State of A.P.

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna Vs The State of A.P

Mohammad Abdul Samad , Munna Vs The State of A.P

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.