Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2019CRLRC/204/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order accepting a compromise arrived at between parties due to inability to continue matrimonial life, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the Magistrate granting maintenance and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the orders dated 15.05.2018 and 12.09.2018 awarding maintenance and compensation; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶2

.IA.No.4 of 2019 and Crl.R.C.No.204 of 2019

¶3

COMMON ORDER

¶4

The criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 12.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.563 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent herein filed a complaint in D.V.C.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/respondent No.1 and others. After due trial, the said complaint was allowed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance including residential accommodation charges, on or before 10^th of every month, and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. The said order was modified by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.563 of 2018 by reducing the compensation from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- payable by petitioner to the complainant. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed.

¶6

During pendency of revision, I.A.No.4 of 2019 is filed by both parties seeking leave of this Court to record compromise as the matter was settled out of the Court and stated that due to misunderstandings between them, the complainant is unable to lead matrimonial life and at the intervention of elders, they have settled their disputes as per the memorandum of understanding dated 27.11.2019 and that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the matter further and she has no objection in allowing the present revision. The said memorandum of understanding shall form part of the record.

¶7

¶8

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner/respondent No.1 and the 2^nd respondent/complainant are present and they are identified by their respective counsel. They filed their aadhar cards along with their photographs. When this Court enquired the parties, the petitioner and the complainant stated that they entered into compromise due to intervention of the elders.

¶9

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be appropriate to record compromise between the parties and to set aside the order and the judgment passed by the Courts below.

¶10

In the result, I.A.No.4 of 2019 is ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 15.05.2018 in D.V.C.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as modified by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.563 of 2018 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal revision case, shall stand closed.

G. SRI DEVI, J

19^th December, 2019

Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar 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

Lilly Vs The State of Telangana

Kaluvala Yadagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Bejjanki Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mekaraboina Nageshwar Vs The State of Telangana

S.Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

Reku Vs The State of Telangana