Allowed

Hemant Malladi v. Madhuri Priyadarshini Malladi

Telangana HC1 Jul 2016CRP/1330/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the Family Court's ex parte order on interim maintenance, remitting the matter for reconsideration as the lower court failed to consider the petitioner-husband's filed counter-affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Family Court setting aside the petitioner ex parte is set aside; the I.A. is remitted for reconsideration pending verification of counter-filing.

Hemant Malladi Vs Madhuri Priyadarshini Malladi — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1330 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the order dated 20.07.2015 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.1452 of 2014 in O.P.No.1700 of 2014. The said I.A. was filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- along with Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs and legal expenses. By the order under revision, the learned Family Court Judge took note of the absence of the petitioner-husband and the fact that he had not filed a counter and accordingly set him ex parte. As the employment and income particulars of the petitionerhusband were not rebutted by him, the learned Family Court Judge allowed the I.A. awarding interim maintenance as prayed for.

¶5

By order dated 22.04.2016, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under revision subject to the petitionerhusband paying the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and also the litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-wife within a time frame. It is now stated that this conditional order has been complied with and the petitioner-husband is paying monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent-wife.

¶6

Sri Y.V.S.S. Siva Sarma, learned counsel for the petitionerhusband, would state that the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was incorrect in noting that the counter had not been filed by his client by the date of passing of the order. Learned counsel would state that a counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioner-husband to the subject I.A. under S.R.No.1442 of 2015 dated 09.03.2015.

¶7

If this is a fact, the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, ought to have considered the averments made therein and ought not to have set the petitioner-husband ex parte on the basis of the finding that he had not filed a counter till the date of passing of the

¶8

order.

¶9

The order under revision is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration. The learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, shall verify as to whether the petitioner-husband did, in fact, file his counter on 09.03.2015 as claimed by him. If that be so, the contents thereof shall be taken into consideration while passing orders afresh in the subject I.A. Pending the disposal of the I.A. afresh on merits, the petitioner-husband shall continue to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-. Such payment shall however abide by the order to be passed on merits by the learned Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District, pursuant to this remand. The monthly maintenance shall be remitted directly into the savings bank account of the respondent-wife. The details of which are recorded hereunder:

¶10

Challa Madhuri Priyadarshini, S.B.A/c.No.91401004855847, Axis Bank, Hyderabad Branch, I.F.S.C. Code-UTIB0000008. The monthly maintenance shall be paid on or before fifth of each calendar month.

¶11

The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶13

____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶14

Date:01.07.2016

¶15

Hemant Malladi v. Madhuri Priyadarshini Malladi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Malladi v. Madhuri Priyadarshini Malladi

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

M/s. Trendset Bharat Projects Developers (P) Ltd., Vs M/s Laxmi Balaji Engineers as Contracts

M/s. Trendset Bharat Projects Developers (P) Ltd. Vs M/s Laxmi Balaji Engineers and Contracts

P. Ramesh Vs G Purnachander Rao (died per LRs)

F.C.S. Peter Vs M. Sudarshan

Smt. K.Jayamma Vs Syed Zainulla Abedin

D.V. Narasimha Reddy, Vs Sri Dr. P.V. Ramesh