Allowed

Sri. Mohd Abdul Ali v. Smt. Hameeda Begum

Telangana HC1 Jun 2017CRLRC/1462/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a criminal revision to set aside an ex parte order in a maintenance case. The petitioner undertook to pay Rs.4,000 monthly to the respondent. The matter was remanded for disposal on merits with directions to complete the trial within two months, subject to the interim payment undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside, M.C.No.41 of 2014 remitted for disposal on merits subject to petitioner paying Rs.4,000 monthly to respondent, and warrants recalled.

Sri. Mohd Abdul Ali Vs Smt. Hameeda Begum — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

Crl.R.C.No.1462 of 2017

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’, for short) is filed by the unsuccessful respondent-husband assailing the order, dated 14.10.2015 of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, passed in M.C.No.41 of 2014.

¶5

I have heard the submissions of Smt. K. Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent. I have perused the material record.

¶6

At the hearing, it is fairly submitted that the order impugned is an ex parte order and that the petitioner herein is agreeable to pay Rs.4,000/ - per month every month to the 1^st respondent without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in the Maintenance Case and that subject to the said undertaking given by the petitioner, the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed and the order impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for disposal afresh on merits.

¶7

Recording the afore-said submissions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned is set aside and M.C.No.41 of 2014 is remitted to the trial Court for disposal afresh and on merits in accordance with the procedure established by law; however, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall pay Rs.4,000/ - [Rupees Four Thousand only) per month every month to the 1^st respondent herein without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in the Maintenance Case till the final disposal of the said case. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the Maintenance

¶8

¶9

Case as directed above as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to these orders, the warrants, if any, issued by the trial Court against the petitioner shall stand recalled. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶10

____________________________ JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶11

01.06.2017 Vjl

Sri. Mohd Abdul Ali v. Smt. Hameeda Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohd Abdul Ali v. Smt. Hameeda Begum

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

Aljapur Gangamohan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Siripuram Madan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Sunil Agarwal Vs B.Lakshminarayan

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Vs K.N. Mahalaxmi D/o Venkataramana Murthy

S. Uppalaiah Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Divisional Manager

Smt. K.Nirmala Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh