Dismissed

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam v. Mr. T.C.Pandurangam

Telangana HC17 Aug 2021CRLRC/294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the revision challenging an interim maintenance order. Held that the aged father is entitled to maintenance as the son has sufficient income. Court directed disposal of the main miscellaneous case within one year and payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Reversal of interim maintenance order; Direction to dispose main case in one year; Order to pay arrears within two months.

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam Vs Mr. T.C.Pandurangam — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

¶2

CRL.R.C.No.294 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2019 in M.C.No.3 of 2019 on the file of the XVI-Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-III-Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, wherein the Court below awarded interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent herein payable by the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein at Rs.10,000/- each.

¶5

1^st respondent herein being the father of the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent and husband of the 3^rd respondent herein, filed the aforesaid M.C.No.3 of 2019 claiming monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each from the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein and Rs.15,000/- from the 3^rd respondent herein. Along with the M.C., the 1^st respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2019 seeking interim maintenance from them. By an order, dated 21.01.2021, the Court below awarded Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance to the 1^st respondent payable by the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein at Rs.10,000/- each. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶6

¶7

GSD, J Crlrc_294_2021

¶8

Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4^th respondent and perused the record.

¶9

As seen from the material available on record, it is an undisputed fact that the 1^st respondent herein is the father of the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein and husband of the 3^rd respondent and that he is an old aged person of about 78 years and he is unable to do any regular work. The contention of the learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent-father is that the 1^st respondent is unable to maintain himself and that he was neglected by the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that in view of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1^st respondent is getting Rs.10,000/- per month and as such he is disentitled to get maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is an admitted fact that the R.D.O. has directed the revision petitioner and the 2^nd respondent herein to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the 1^st respondent towards maintenance for food and medicines etc. The 2^nd respondent herein has stated before the Court below that he is regularly transferring Rs.10,000/- per month to the account of the 1^st respondent herein. It is an undisputed fact that 1^st respondent is aged about 78 years and he is suffering from old age ailments. It is needless to say that in old age, one requires extra precaution on his diet and to spend substantial amount on

¶10

¶11

GSD, J Crlrc_294_2021

¶12

medication. Moreover, the quantum of maintenance is to be fixed on the basis of total income of the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner is working with SAP Asia Private Limited, Singapore as Strategic Partner-cum-Director of APJE & C Management, one can safely draw an inference that the revision petitioner is getting substantial income and, therefore, the Court below directed the revision petitioner to pay only an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent herein towards maintenance, which is not on higher side.

¶13

Apparently, the main M.C.No.3 of 2019 is pending. Since there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the revision petitioner with the 1^st respondent herein and as the revision petitioner has got sufficient means, this Court is of the view that the 1^st respondent/father is entitled for interim maintenance. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below.

¶14

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, since the M.C. is of the year 2019, the Court below is directed to dispose of M.C.No.3 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till such time, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay interim maintenance at Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent as directed by the Court below. The revision

¶15

¶16

GSD, J Crlrc_294_2021

¶17

petitioner is also directed to pay arrears of interim maintenance to the 1^st respondent within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the early disposal of the M.C.

¶18

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶19

17.08.2021 Gsn/gkv

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam v. Mr. T.C.Pandurangam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Radhika Pandurangam v. Mr. T.C.Pandurangam

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

Manne Raghavendra Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Anumula Sangeetha Vs The State of Telangana

Sabavath Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Maloth Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana

E. Vijaypal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Trivikram Rao Vs The State of Telangana