Dismissed

Budarapu Srinivas, v. Budarapu Sandhya Rani and Another

Telangana HC16 Nov 2021CRLRC/131/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court held that since the underlying matrimonial dispute attained finality, the revision challenging an interlocutory order was infructuous and dismissed it.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as infructuous, and miscellaneous petitions pending therein were closed.

Budarapu Srinivas, Vs Budarapu Sandhya Rani… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

,N HE HIGH COURT FOR 7 ar nvoES,qsJfJE^{oF TELANGANA}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIUBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWCr.rrY'5r.IE'""'''

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE sHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE N O: 131 OF 2008

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C preferred against the Order made in Crl.lM.P.No.92 of 2007 in M.C.No.B5 of 2004 dated 14.09.2007 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Budarapu Srinivas, S/o. Kanakaiah, aged 37^years, Occ: Daily^WageWorker, r I o. 16-10-7 17, Shivanagar, Warangal

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Budarapu Sandhya Rani,^{W/o. Srinivas, aged 28 years, Occ: Nil,} FUo. H.No.'16-9-54, Puppalagutta,^Warangal.

¶12

State of A.P., rep. by^{its Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of A'P',Hyderabad}

¶13

,,.RESPONDENTS

¶14

CRLRCMP . NO:¹⁹ 30^{F 2008}

¶15

Petition under Section^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspendtheoperationoftheorderdatedl4.0g.200TinCrl.M.P.No.92of200Tin tr/.C.No.85 of 2006 on^{the file of Family Court Judge,Warangal'}

¶16

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI'BANKATLALMANDHANI}

¶17

Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶18

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1: NONEAPPEARED}

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

I I I

¶21

¶22

THE HON,BLE^{DT. ]USTICESHAMEEM AKTHER} 2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Sri Bankatlal^{Mandhani,learned counselfor the revision} petitioner, would^{submitthat since the matrimonialdispute} between the^{parties attainedfinality, nothing survives for} adjudicationinthisCriminalRevisionCasewhichisfiledchallenging an interlocutory^{order passedin the M'C'No'85 of 2007 and that} therefore, this^{Criminal RevisionCase may be dismlssed as} infructuous.

¶25

2 Recording the said^{submissionof the learned counselfor the} revision petitioner, this^{Criminal Revisicn Case is dismissed as} infructuous.

¶26

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,^{pendingin this Criminal} Revision Case shall stand closed.

SD/.K.VENKAIAH

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYi/

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Judoe. Familv Court, Warangal.^{(with records)} i onL cc"to sri Ba;rkatlal^{Mandhani, Advocate} [oPUC]

¶33

5: il; cCr to tn"^{Public Prosecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶34

Two CD Copies

¶35

One Spare CoPY gbr

HIGH^COURT

DATED: 1611112021

e TA r€
1
e
oo)q 3 0 N0'l2$21 a
-r t) E SD

¶40

ORDER

¶41

CRL.RC.No.131 of 2008

¶42

DISMlSSlNG THE CRL.RC. AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶43

v tL \ 1) .^\ @

Budarapu Srinivas, v. Budarapu Sandhya Rani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budarapu Srinivas, v. Budarapu Sandhya Rani and Another

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

A.Prathap Reddy Vs v.Raghuveer Reddy and the State of A.P.

S.Premalatha Vs v.Swarnalatha and Another

A.Prathap Reddy Vs v.Raghuveer Reddy and the State of A.P.

Smt.M.Rajyalaxmi, Vs P.Chandrasekhara Sastry and Another

Anees Mohiuddin , Ameer , Abu Ayub Ansari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Anees Mohiuddin , Ameer Vs State of A.P.