Dismissed

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and Anr., v. Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Nalgonda Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC6 Sept 2022CRLRC/1040/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the Principal Sessions Judge's order conditioning the condonation of appeal delay on partial payment of maintenance arrears. The Court fixed the petitioners with one month to pay arrears and dispose of the appealed domestic violence case expediently.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; petitioners directed to pay maintenance arrears within one month; interim order vacated; Principal Sessions Judge directed to dispose of appeal expeditiously upon payment.

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

1321s l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HY ERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

CR|MINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1040 OF 2017

¶7

Criminal Revision case Under Section 3 & 401 of Cd.P.C dated 24-03-2017 agaanst the order in CRL.M.P.No. 100 of 201 6 in UNREGISTERED CRL.APPEAL lN on the file of the Co rt of the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Preferred against the Order in VC.No.7 of 2013 dated 23-01-2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Kodad.

¶8

Between

¶9

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o Venkatappaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Kodad Town and mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶10

Vangaveeri Satyavathi, Wo.V.M V.Ranga Rao, aged about 47 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/AP ELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Wo.Venkatappa Rao, Aged years, Occ:Household, R/o.H.No.1-41, Ashok Nagar, Kodad, Nalgond aDi rict

¶14

,..1"t RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COM LAINANT

¶15

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

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RES NDENT

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Between

¶19

Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Wo.Venkatappa Rao, Aged 73 years, Occ.H usewife, R/o.H.No.1-41, Ashok Nagar, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

¶20

....PETITIONER/1ST RESP NDENT

¶21

¶22

And

¶23

Vangaveeti ladhu Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o.Venkalapparah, Aged about 55 years, C:c. Business, R/o.H.No.1-41, Ashok Nagar, Kodad Suryapet District

¶24

Vangaveeri latyavathi, Wo.V.M.V.Ranga Rao, ag,ld about 55 years, Occ. Busines;, R/o.H.No.1-41, Ashok Nagar, Kodad Suryapet District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶26

The State of 1 elangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor Hrgh Court at Hyderabad.

¶27

...FESPONDENTS

¶28

Petitio r under Section 151 CPC praying that i1 the circumstances stated in the affida'it filed in support of the petition the Hrgh Court may be pleased to vacat ) the interim order dated 13-04-2017 passed in Crl.R.C.No.^'1040 of 1017.

¶29

Counsel for the Revi ;ion Petitioners and Respondents in l.l.No.1 of 2022 :SRl. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY

¶30

Counsel for the Resl ondent No.1 in Crl.R.C. and Petitioner in l.A.No.1 ol 2022 . :SRI GSUNDARES/N

¶31

Counsel for the ResF cndent No.2 in Crl.R.C. and Respondent No.3 in l.A.No.1 of 2022: PUBLIC PRC SECUTOR

¶32

The Court made the I rllowing: ORDER

¶33

l'fIE HON'BLII Dr..l(ISI'ICE G. IIADHA RANI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.l0,l0 OF 20I7

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order in rl.M.P. No.1008 of 2016 in an unregistered criminal appeal against DVC o.7 of 2013 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda dated24.03 2017.

¶36

The petition under Crl.M.P. No.l008 of 2016 was led to condone the delay of 449 days in preferring the appeal and the eamed Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda allowed the petition condon tlie delay of 449 days on condition that the petitioners shall pay half of the arrears to the I't respondent in teims of the order dated 23.01.2015 assed in DVC No.7 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kod ,on or before 13.04.2017 and if the petitioners failed to pay the same, the delay condone petition would stand dismissed.

¶37

Aggrieved by the said order, this revision case is prefe dbv the petitioners-appellants contending that the appellate court^e ln passing conditional order while allowing the delay petition. The ouft ought to have appreciated the contention olthe^petitioners that the^pay ent of amount covered by DVC No.7 of^{2013 was the subject} matt of outcome in the criminal appeal filed by^{the petitionersand e} ln

¶38

-) ti r;Rll_.1 I lllt ..ltqo,f)01-

¶39

imposing conditi rn lor payment of the amcars which rvas the issue to bc adjudicated in thr appeal.

¶40

Hea d the leamed counsel for the petition(:rs as rvell as the leamed counsel : cr the l'1 respondent-complainant.

¶41

Lea'ned counsel for the petitioners-altpel Ia nts submitted that the l" responde rt was the mother of the I't petitioner. She filed a DVC against the petit oners to restrain them from sending hel rrnd her husband out of the hous: at Ashoknagar, Kodad, Nalgonda f)istrict and also for their maintenan;e. The trial court, without appreciatir.g the evidence on record and witl out taking into consideration that the l'' respondent was having valuabl : property on her name and the h:sband of the 1" respondent als,, having valuable property in his narne and they were getting more tl an Rs.20,000/- per month as. rents on thr:ir properties and were also coll cting rents of Rs.15,000/- per month c,n the house of the petitioners and were also doing money lending busineris and getting more than Rs.15,00(/- per month, directed the petitioners tc pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the I't respondent and also ordered not to dirturb the possession of the 1" resp rndent over the house property irrespective ofher right, title and interest ar d also directe{ th_e concemed Station Hor-rse Officer to give

¶42

protection to the l't respondent and her husband. Chatlengin the saici order, the petitioners preferred an appeal and as there was a de ay of 449 days in preferring the appeal due to serious ill health of the 2nd tltloner, the petition to condone the delay was filed under Rule 127 1) of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The said petition was allowed by th Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, but irnposition of condition to pay f of the arrears in terms of order dated 23.01.2015 in DVC No.7 of 013 was unfair as it was the subject matter of appeal and prayed to llow the revision by setting aside the order of tlie Principal Sessio S Judge, Nalgonda in Crl.M.P. No.1008 of 2016 dated24.07.2017.

¶43

Learned counsel for the l't respondent - de facto plainant submitted that inspite of lapse of seven and half years after pas ng ofthe orders by the leamed Magistrate in DVC, the petitioners delib tely and intentionally failed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,00 - to the Ittrespondent, the l$ respondent was an aged woman without an financial support and was solely dependent on the maintenance. By of the interim stay granted by this Court on 13.04.2017 subject to the dition of the petitioners depositing 1/4ft of the arrears of maintenance of .5,000/per month on or before 06.06.2017, tl.re petitioners deposited .36,250/but were not paying the monthly maintenance from^{the date of} order in

¶44

¶45

¶46

DVC, which rr ould amount to lts.4,00,000/- till datt'. The l" respondent filed Crl.M.P. No.922 of 2021 in DVC No.7 of 2013 to cornmit the petitionels to r ivil prison for a period of one year lbr realization of the an'ears ol ma nlenance and also filed Crl.M.P. No.934 of 2021 for withdrawal of hc deposited amount of Rs.36,250/-, brrl ttre same were also pending by vi tue of the interim order dated 13.04.2017 passed by this couft, as tlre li rthcr proceedings were stayed and there r,,,as no direction to withdraw the s rid amount. Hence, prayed to vacate thc, interim order dated 13.04.20 I 7 an, to dismiss the revision.

¶47

P rused the record. The record would disclose that the l't respondent was a woman aged 68 years by the date of filing of the petition in the year 2013 in DVC No.7 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad and she claimed rnaintenance from the petitioners wl o were none other than her own son and daughter-in-law. The trial cour after considering the evidence on recor,l and after a detailed examination rf the evidence, passed order prohibiting the petitioners herein from :ommitting any act of domestic viol,:nce against the I't respondent h:rein and directed to pay a sum o[ Rs.5,000/- to the l't responder : towards monthly maintenance and ,also directed not to disturb her pr ssession over the house bearing No.l-z 1 irrespective of her

\ t

I I

Dr(;tU?.,/ RC. Nh lArn if 20 t 1

¶52

right, title and interest therein and also directed the concerned HO to give

¶53

protection to the l't respondent and her husband.

¶54

Assailing the said order, the petitioners herein p ferred the criminal appeal and as there was a delay of 449 days in p lerring the criminal appeal, filed Crl.M.P. No.1008 of 2016 before t Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda allowed the petition and condoned the delay on the condition o petltloners paying half of the arrears to the 1't respondent in terms of the rder dated 23.01.2015 in DVC No.7 of 2013 on or before 13.04.2011 .

¶55

This Court does hot find any illegality in the said o er though payment of the amount was disputed by the petitioners erein and preferred an appeal challenging the same. As the object of providing maintenance is to prevent the dependents from being lead to v IfAr cy and destitution and by the order of this court dated 13.04.2017 whe only an amount of Rs.36,250/- was deposited by the petitioners before the court below and that too, the lo respondent was not able to withdr the same and no order was given for paying the maintenance regularly du to which the petitioners avoided making payment of maintenance the 1t' respondent, an old aged woman who was now agcd rnore than 75 and

¶56

6 (-11.lt i't ltiatt.t :t)l;

¶57

was awaiting for { re orders of tliis court, it is considered fit to vacate the interim order date I 13.04.2017 and to direct the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda to dispc;e of tlre appeal as expeditiously as possible.

¶58

-r

¶59

1 0. In tl e result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the or ler dated24.03.2017 passed in Crl.M.P. No.1008 of 2016 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioners are further directed to pay a rears of maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per ruonth to the l't respondent as ar zarded by the court below frorn the date of order i.e. 23.01.2015 in DvC No.7 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad til . date, within a period of one month fi'om the date of receipt of copy^{, ,f} this order.. The interim order dated i3.04.2017 passed by this court in t te present revision case is vacated. Only after compliance of the above r aid condition by the petitioners, the appeal may be entertained by'he Principal Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the same is directed to be di ;posed of as expeditiously as possible.

¶60

Pending r riscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/.A,.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// c SECTIONbFFIcER

¶62

¶63

To,

¶64

1 The Principa Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.(with records, if anyl

¶65

2 The Judicial^:irst Class Magistrate, Kodad Nalgonda District (with records if any)

¶66

3 Two CCs to he PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court fc,r the State of Telangana a Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶67

4 One CC to :iRl. V BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY, Advocete.[Opuc] C One CC to 5 Rl. G SUNDARESAN, Advocate.[OpUC] 6 Two CD Co1 ies 7 One Spare⁽ ,opy

¶68

'J^tl lN{N

HIGH COUF T

DATED:061( 912022

ORDER

CRLRC.No. 1040 of 2017

¶73

/
2 2 [[T 2C22

¶74

DISMISSIN(; THE CRLRC WITHOUT CIf,STS

¶75

<br>aSrt}

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and Anr., v. Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Nalgonda Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vangaveeti Madhu Venkata Ranga Rao, Nalgonda and Anr., v. Vangaveeti Swarajyam, Nalgonda Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

M/S Rajesh Poultry Farms Ensanpally (v) R.M. Medak., Vs Smt.Putnala Lingavva, Medak Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Nampally Kattaiah and 2 Others Vs State of Telangana

Posa Rama Krishna, Uppal, Hyd., Vs Smt.Chitrada Malleshwari, Habsiguda, and Anr., Rep Pp.

G.Vl.N.Murthy, Hyd Vs Smt. G. Sahitya, Nizamabad and 2 Othrs

Canara Bank, T.S.R.Complex, Secunderabad and 17 Others Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Hyd and 2 Others

Gummala Santhosh, Khammam Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.