Dismissed

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. v. M. Arundathi, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC13 Jul 2022CRLRC/1121/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed for an extension of time to pay maintenance arrears. The Court held that the dispute was civilian and settled out of court, allowing the revision to be dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application for extension of time to pay maintenance arrears dismissed as infructuous; matter settled out of court.

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs M. Arundathi… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1121 OF 2016

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 Crl.P.C against the Judgmentin M.C.No.18/2015dated 1810312016 onthefileof theCourtof theJudge, Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, S/o M.Laxman Goud, aged about 33 years, Occ: Service, Fl/o. H.No.48-304, Ganesh Nagar, Chinthal, H tr,/T Road, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

M. Arundathi, W/o. M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Household

¶12

M.Krishna Mohan, S/o. M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, Aged about 4/z years Both are R/o. Flat No.201, Plot No.20, Krishna Nilayam, Bhagya Nagar Coltiny, Karmanghat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶13

3 rhe state of rerangana' rep bv Pubric "::.ftt$B'ftB3ftTBi5J$iii,iftt-.

¶14

CRLRCMP. NO: 2090 OF 2016

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased te in the interest of^justice to extend the time granted in Crl.M.P.No.1650 of 2016 in Crl.R.C. No.112'1 ol 2016, d1.26.4.2O16 for a further period of six weeks to comply the conditional order to the extent of payment of arrears'

¶16

This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case,^.and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivas Emani, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.3 and of Sri J.C.Babu, Advocate not present for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2-

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I i

¶19

IIONOtI,1.,\Ill.l'. SRI .ltis'l l(lll,.S\N'fIlC,SII lil']i)l)Y (-Rll Il\AL ltt.VlSION (',\Sl. No. I l2l r f 2t)16

¶20

OItDhlt:

¶21

Ihis^{r 'r'irninal} R"^r,ision Casc is Illccl arr.ic'r,cd try the oldcr, datcd I i^()l 1016. passcd in lvl.( .No.lli ol' l(rl.i on thc lllc ol' Judgc, l:; nrily^(-ourt. L.l).Nagar. Rartgit R,:,1cly,^I)istrict awarding rrlor hlv nraintcnartcc ol' tls.j.000/- 1lcr rr()nth ,rach to rcspondcrlt No .I and I liorrr thc datc ol'pctition i.c. ll.Il.2t)I4

¶22

Lcanrcd .:rlunscl lirl thc pctitioncr subnrits tlrr tlr,r nrrttcr is

¶23

scttlcd out ol-C rurt and thc sub.icct nlattcr has lrccon t iniiuc uous.

¶24

Whilc rc .orclirre thc srrbnrissiorr ol lcarnc.l c<, r rscl lor thc pclitioncr. this⁽ r'irrinal [{cvision^('esc is clisrnisstcl l:s irl'uclrrous

¶25

Misccllancous 1 ctitions pcrrding. il'an_v. shalI stanri closr:cl

¶26

SC'.K,SRINIVASA RAO .OINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY// w

SE(]TI()N OFFICER

'1 . The Judge, Fam y Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Na,yar 2. Two CCs to the I^)ublic Prosecutor, High Court for the Stat; oi Telangana, Hyderabad (OU'lⁱ

¶31

One CC to Sri Sr nivas Emani, Advocate (OPUC)

¶32

One CC to Sri J.r ..Babu, Advocate (OPUC)

¶33

Two CD Copies

¶34

One Spare Copy

_n.

*.-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310712O22

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1121 of '016

¶41

2 t.lrlv 292 i
t,

¶42

DISMISSING THE C^.IL,R.C. AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶43

M\A
@

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. v. M. Arundathi, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. v. M. Arundathi, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

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

J. Raghuraj, Vs State of Telangana

B.Srinivas Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs Smt. B.Sangeetha, Hyd and 3 Otrs. Rep Pp.

Garikapati.Paul Raju, Sonabhadra Dist, U.P. Vs Garikapati Padmaja, Madhira

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P.and Anr.

Gudepu Balaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Smt.Anita Balasubramanyam, Bangalore., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.