Dismissed

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi v. Kilani Appa Rao

Telangana HC26 Aug 2016CRP/4073/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a divorced wife challenging the Family Court's order allowing the release of the husbands' pension and provident fund. The Court held the lower Court was justified as the restraint order did not cover retirement benefits. The connected criminal revision petition stands disposed of as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected C.R.P.M.P. disposed of as infructuous.

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi Vs Kilani Appa Rao — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4073 OF 2016

¶3

DATED:26-08-2016

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi … Petitioner And Kilani Appa Rao … Respondent

¶6

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Reddy Venkata Ramana

¶7

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: -

¶8

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

2 CVNR, J CRP 4073/2016

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This civil revision petition arises out of order dt.13.5.2016 in I.A. No.572 of 2016 in I.A. No.805 of 2015 in O.P. No.362 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum- V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

The petitioner is the divorced wife of the respondent. She has filed the afore-mentioned O.P. under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for payment of Rs.7,00,000/- towards past maintenance and Rs.20,000/- per month towards future maintenance. In I.A. No.805 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, the Court has attached the leave encashment and arrears of leave salary. Evidently, the respondent has retired from service. As his retirement benefits, such as, pension and provident fund were not paid, he has filed I.A. No.572 of 2016 for raising the attachment. By the order under revision, the Family Court has allowed the said application.

¶13

From the contents of the order under revision it appears that what was attached in I.A. No.805 of 2015 was only leave encashment and arrears of leave salary of the respondent. Evidently, in view of the subsistence of the said order, the employer of the respondent has not paid even pension and provident fund. This obviously led the respondent to file I.A. No.572 of 2016. As noted above, the said I.A. was allowed by the lower Court with the observation that the order passed in I.A. No.805 of 2015 did not prohibit release of the pensionary benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the illegality, if any, in the order of the lower Court. If the restraint order obtained by the petitioner is confined only to release of leave encashment and leave salary of the respondent, the lower Court is justified in clarifying the said position to

¶14

3 CVNR, J

¶15

CRP 4073/2016

¶16

enable the respondent to receive the retirement benefits which are not the subject matter of I.A. No.805 of 2015. In the premises as above, I

¶17

do not find any merit in this civil revision petition.

¶18

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.

¶20

No.5278 of 2016 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

_______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶22

26-08-2016

¶23

bnr

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi v. Kilani Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kilani Kanaka Mahalakshmi v. Kilani Appa Rao

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

Nambala Venkata Rao Vs Tara Malleswara Rao (died)

Vaddadi Venkata Murali Vs P.Ravi Shankar

Koduru Govindu, Vs Siripurapu Paradesinaidu

Sri Palisetti Satish Kumar Vs State Bank of India

B.Anil Kumar Reddy, Vs Mrs.Janaki, I.A.S.

Botta Appa Rao Vs Vadlamuri Shyam Siva Rao