Disposed

Deepak Singh v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC7 Nov 2022CRLP/1292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an interim maintenance order. The Court directed the Principal Family Court to dispose of the pending maintenance case within three months, continued interim maintenance without insisting on arrears, and suspended coercive steps against the petitioner till final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directs Family Court to dispose of pending case within 3 months; petitioner to pay interim maintenance but not arrears; no coercive steps till final disposal.

Deepak Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1 292 oF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Deepak Singh, S/o Satish Kumar Chauhan, Aged 39^yrs, Ocg. Pvt Employee,f,/o H.No. Plot No.94, Street No.10, Shanthi Niketan Colony, Mahindra Hills,^East Marredpally, Secunderabad-26 ...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana , Rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶11

Raiani Singh, Wo Deepak Singh, Aged. 35^yrs, Occ. Pvt Employee, Rio. H.No.4-2-113, Old Bhoiguda, Secunderabad.^., Respondent^{No.2 / Petitioner}

¶12

MasterSarvin, S/o Deepak Singh, Aged. 11^yrs, Occ. Student, R/o. H.No.4-2113, Old Bhoiguda, Secu4derabad. Being Minor Rep. by Natural Guardian i.e., Respondent No.2, Mother. ...RESPONDENT No.3 / Petitioner

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may^be plcased to quash the lnterim-orders passed in M.P.No.220 of 2017 in M.C.No.79 or 2017 on the file of The JUDGE. PRINICIPAL FAMILY^CpURT,AT SECUNDERABAD, dated.22nd day of November, 2021.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the^{circumstances} slated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may^be pleased to stay all further proceedings and operation of the interim orders ci.:ed.22.1'1.2021 passed in M.P.No.220 of 2017 in M.C.No.79 of 2017 on the file of the Judge. Prinicipal Family court, at Secunderabad in the^{interestof Justice.}

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri T. Surya of Sri_Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

, l

¶19

HOIrBLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIUIALATHA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.i292 of 2022

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Heard the submission of Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsei appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.1 is a formal party.

¶23

Challenge in this Criminal Petition is the order that is rendered by the Principal Family Court, Secunderabad, in M.P.No.220 ol 2Ai7 in M.C.No.79 of 2017, dated 22.tr.2021.

¶24

I \

¶25

By the material available on record, what could be perceived by this Court is that the Maintenance Case was filed five years back i.e., ir-r the year 2Ol7 . At the same time, an appiication for grant ol interim maintenance was also filed. That interim maintenance application uide M.P.No.22O of 2017 was disposed of after four years i.e., in the year 2021. Aggrieved by thc said order, the respondent therein is before this Court

¶26

As the Maintenance Casc is of the^{year 2017,} it^is felt desirable to direct the Family Court to^dispose of the^said

¶27

i i

¶28

¶29

DT.CSL.J Crl. P.No.l292 of 2022

¶30

¶31

Maintenance Case itself expeditiously. Learned counsels appear-ing for the respective parties agreed for giving such a direction. Therefore, this Criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶32

The Pnncipal Familg Court, Secund.erabad,, is directed to dispose of M.C.No.79 of 2017 that is pendrng on tlrc file of th.e said Court as expeditk>uslg os possible, preferablg uithin a peiod of three months from the date of receipt of a copg of this order. Till such time, th.e petitiorter herein is directed to pag maintenance as ordered bg tLe Court belou.t in M.p.No.22O of 2O 17. Hou.teuer, tLe petitioner shall not be lnsisted to paA the arrears of maintenance, if ang, till the final disposal of the aforesaid. Maintenctnce Case. At the same time, no coerciue steps slnll be taken against the petittoner ttll then.

¶33

As a scqucl, miscellaneous applications, if anv,

¶34

pending, shall stand closed.

¶35

¶36

'^kbixL"##ui[xk ( _.it

¶37

/ffRUE^COPY" SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

i:l383?""rLll,l?l3L'"s,Tl''"3fl.il?"??H133131?$;'"n"..""

¶39

; BiX"'Cf,1'{H]'^{uotEEDHARREDDY Advocate toPucl}

¶40

One^{CC to SRI' T' SURYASATISH' Advocate IOPUC]}

¶41

¶42

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

Dr. CSLJ

DATED:07 t11t2022

1 I ( .:\:
t I u''l 2U2
L) 2 'J,
I
D a'

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLP.No.1292 ot 2022

¶51

I,II\POSING OF THE CRL.PETITION.

Deepak Singh v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Singh v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

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

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Sri Raavi Venkata Durga Prasad , Raavi Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Puli Ashok Kumar Vs Katakam Rajalingu and 3 others

Kesarla Nagaraju and 5 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

D. Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Kistangari Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana