Allowed

Smt. Panduga Padma alias Saritha v. Panduga Chandraiah

Telangana HC3 Aug 2017CRLRC/188/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court quashed an order of the Family Court, Warangal, which refused to attach part of retirement benefits. The High Court found the trial court's inference regarding alleged payments illegal due to a flawed procedure involving a refusal to swear an oath in the name of the second petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal.

Smt. Panduga Padma alias Saritha Vs Panduga… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

CRL. R.C. NO.188 OF 2004

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order, dated 15.12.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.276 of 2003 in M.C.No.117 of 2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal whereby the Court dismissed the petition for attachment of 1/ 4^th of retiral benefits of the first respondent herein.

¶5

The petitioners filed M.C.No.117 of 2002 before the Judge, Family Court, Warangal and an interim maintenance application was also filed, but the petition was dismissed on merits. Since the interim maintenance petition was dismissed, the trial Court dismissed the present petition in Crl.M.P.No.276 of 2003 declining to grant interim attachment of 1/ 4^th of retiral benefits of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶6

The impugned order is now challenged before this Court on various grounds and mainly contended that the order passed by the court below dismissing the miscellaneous petition refusing to attach 1/ 4^th of the retiral benefits is illegal for the reason that if the first respondent is allowed to withdraw the amount, certainly the petitioners herein will be put to serious loss and it is difficult to realise the maintenance, if any, awarded by the Court in the maintenance case.

¶7

As seen from the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal, it is evident that the first respondent produced laminated paper containing certain recitals regarding settlement of claim wherein the first respondent herein allegedly paid Rs.30,000/ - at the first instance and another sum of Rs.30,000/ - at the second instance while agreeing to live separately with the petitioners. But, surprisingly the petitioners

¶8

¶9

admitted receipt of Rs.30,000/ - allegedly paid at the first instance while denying the second payment of Rs.30,000/ -. But, the trial Judge asked the first petitioner to swear in the name of second petitioner/ son and when she refused, the Court believed the alleged payment and dismissed the petition. The way in which the order passed by the trial Judge on the refusal to swear in the name of second petitioner is totally contrary to the law and no such procedure is contemplated anywhere and drawing such presumption that she received Rs.30,000/ - when she refused to swear in the name of her son is a clear illegality and irregularity. Therefore, by exercising powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. this court can interfere with such finding when the proceedings are irregular. Hence, criminal case is liable to be allowed.

¶10

In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside

¶11

the order, dated 15.12.2003 in Crl.M.P.No.276 of 2003 in M.C.No.117 of 2002 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal.

¶12

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________________ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J

¶14

DATE:03-08-2017 ccm

¶15

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

CRL.R.C. NO.188 OF 2004

¶18

Date:03.08.2017

¶19

ccm

Smt. Panduga Padma alias Saritha v. Panduga Chandraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Panduga Padma alias Saritha v. Panduga Chandraiah

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

P.Vittal Vs M/s.Sri Sikhara Projects

Shankerpally Eedulkanti Narsimulu Vs Smt. Shankerpally , Eedulkanti Susheela

Kandula Leninbabu Vs Kandula Jhansi Lakshmi

M. Ravindra Babu, Vs The State

S.Vamsi Rama Krishana, Vs Smt. Jalli Renukadevi , Vani

Smt. Padmavathi Vs State of Telangana