Dismissed

Smt. Sirisha Siddam, Hyderabad., v. N.Siddam Narasimhulu, Bangalore and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC20 Jul 2022CRLRC/1157/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision filed to enhance monthly maintenance by modifying a prior order. The High Court, noting that the parties had settled and were living together without dispute, dismissed the petition as infructuous and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for enhancement of maintenance was dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt. Sirisha Siddam, Hyderabad., Vs N.Siddam… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1157 OF 2016

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated.19.01 .2015 passed in M.C. No. 247 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum Additional Family Court lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt Sirisha Siddam, W/o. Niranjan Siddam Narasimhulu, Occ Private Employee, R/o.H.No.8-3-2311134, C-Block, Sri Krishna Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

N. Siddam Narasimhulu, S/o. Narasimhulu Siddam, Occ: Project Lead in HP, Bangalore, R/o.H.No.4, 4th "A" Cross, Near Sundari Memorial School, RA Road, Ejipura, Vivek Nagar Post, Bangalore-S0O 047.

¶12

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

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

l.A. NO:1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP. NO: 1717 OF 2016)

¶15

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to enhance the monthly maintenance to Rs. 50,000/- per month by modifying the order in M.C.No.247 ot 2015 on the file of the Addilional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubliee Hills

¶16

Car Borrib Blast Case cum Additional Family Cou rt of lX Additional lVletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s KRISHNA MURTHY VYDYULA Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI K. B. RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I toN' Br.t.t strI .t t s-t'tc1..,.s,\ \1't tost I It[.l)I)\ (lRlMINAl, I{E/lSlO\ (',\SIl No. I 157 ol'2(ll6

¶19

OIiDE,R:

¶20

'['his casc is lllcd to sct asiclc lhL' ordcr in M.('. No.247 ol' 20 l5 dated l9-0 l-20 l5 passccl b_r tlrc Additiorral Mctropolitan Scssions Judgc lbr thc'l rial ol'.lLrblicc llills⁽ ar llonrb Illast casccum- Additional lranrilv^(lotrrl lX r\rlditional Mctropolitan Sessions Judgc, Ilydcrabad by cnlrancing thc rlonthly' rnaintcnancc Lo Rs.50,000/- to tlic l)ctitroncr

¶21

I-carncd counscl fbr thc lcsporrclcnt is prcscrrt and submits that thc rrattcr has alrcadv scttlctl oLrt^()l'c()r.ll1 ancl thc l)artics arc living togethcr without any disputc. llcncc. thc nrattcr hrs bccornc in ll'uctuous.

¶22

While recording thc subrnissiorr o1'lcarnccl courrscl lbr thc respondcnt, thc^(lrirninal Iicr isiorr⁽ asc is disrnissed as in liuctuous.

¶23

Misccllancous pctitions. il' arrr. pcnd irrg in this crirn inal

¶24

rcv is ion casc, shallstand closctl

¶25

SD/-K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fu SECTIUN OFFICER

¶26

To,

¶27

The Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge for the Trial of JubileeHills} Car Bomb Blast Case cum^{Additional Family Court lX Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge,^{Hyderabad (With records)}

¶28

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of} Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

¶29

One CC to M/s Krishna^{Murthy Vydyula, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶30

One CC to Sri K.^{B. Ramanna Dora, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶31

Two CD Copies

¶32

One Spare^CoPY MMK

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:201O712022

ORDER

tI -N
lt;'
!! l], e
.y
F-

¶37

CRLRC.No.1157 of 2016

¶38

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE AS INF]tUCTUOUS

Smt. Sirisha Siddam, Hyderabad., v. N.Siddam Narasimhulu, Bangalore and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sirisha Siddam, Hyderabad., v. N.Siddam Narasimhulu, Bangalore and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Laxmi Kala and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

P.Sangeetha Vs K. Muralidhar

Mir Aijaz Ali Vs The State of Telangana

C. Madhukar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gandham Bhagath, Hyd Vs K. Venkateswar Rao , Raju, Hyd and Anr.

B. Jyothiramoy, Vs SHO