Partly allowed

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2022CRLRC/281/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a revision petition challenging a Family Court order redirecting the petitioner's passport. The court held it desirable to direct the Family Court to expeditiously decide the pending maintenance case to ensure the petitioner resides within its jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Court to dispose of the pending maintenance case (M.C.No. 1 of 2021) within four months.

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY^{THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICECHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASENO:281OF 2021}

¶6

Revision filed under^{section397 and 401 of the criminat procedure code, 1973} against the order^{datedog.o4-2021 in CRL.M.P No.6 of 202,1on the file of the MC} No.lof202,lpassedbytheHon,bleJudgeFamilyCourt.Cum.VlllAdditional Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar^{by allowingCriminal Revision Case}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Manzoorus^{Salam, S/oMohammedAbdus Salam' Aged69 years'} 6;;. Fi;iiA;R/..^{H.No. 5 - 5 -201t3 PatelNasar' Nampallv'Hvderabad}

¶9

...Petitioner/ResPondent

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor'High Court of} Telangana State,^HYderabad.

¶12

. .. Res^{pon de nURes} Pon^dent

¶13

Smt. Kouser Jahan,^{Wo. Mohammed Manzoorus Salam' Aged?0 yqalq'} - o;;. ri.ri"rroio, nyo. n.1o. i-e-lyo, Madina tvasjid Street, Mahabub Nagar

¶14

... RespondenUPetitioner

¶15

IA NO: 1 0F²⁰²¹

¶16

Petitionundersection4S2cPc,lgT3prayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be} pteased to suspend the^{order in CRLMPNo' 6 of 2021 in MC No 1 of 2021} dated 09-04-2021^{passedby the Hon'ble Judge Family Court - cum - Vlll} Additional session Judge,^{Mahboobnagarincluding personal apperanceof the} petitioner in MC No. 1 of^{2O21 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge Familycourt-} cum - Vlll Additional^{Session Judge,Mahboobnagar'}

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitio ter: Sri C' SHARANREDDY}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respo tdent No'1: Additional Public Prosecutt'r} Counsel^{for the Respo rdent No'2: M/s' G' Sudha}

¶19

The Court^{made the fo'lowing:ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAT REVISION PETITION No.281 of 2O2l ORDER:

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing Respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶22

Challenge in ttris revision case is the order that is rendered by the Family Courf, Mahabubnagar in Crl.M.P.No.6 of 2O2l in M.C.No. t of 2O2l dated O9"O4.2O21. By the impugned order, the Family Court directed the petitioner herein to deposit hrs passporr_ Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ail the five children of the petitioner reside at different parrs of the country and therefore, ttre petitioner requires passporr to visit them and hence, a direction may be issued to the trial court to return his passport.

¶23

Per contra, the submission of learned counsei for respondent No.2 is that though the Family Court ordered

¶24

2 Dr CSL, J Cr.Rc-No.28l of202t

¶25

the pe; itioner to deposit his passport, br.tt he has not depositr:d hrs passport. Learned counse. Ibr respondent No.2 fur ther submits that a Maintenance Case ernd another case for grant of divorce that is fired bv the petitioner himself re pending and in case, the petitio,er reaves the country, respondent No.2 would not be in a position to get mainten: nce and hence, appropriate or.ders may be passed 5, Hav ng considered the submission thus made and also taking rnto consideration the facts ald :ircumstances arrd as tt e Maintenance Case is of the year 2021, this court is cf the view that it would be wholl.,r desirabre to direct the .amily Court to dispose of the mairLtenance case itself time iround 6 Resul -antly, the criminal petition is disp,osed of with the followin I rlirection:

¶26

The [amily Court, Mahabubnagar is dirt:cted to dispo;e ot M.C.No. I of 2O2l which is pending on i s file as expeditiously as pc ssible, prefer rtrly within a period of four months from the da te of receipt ol a copy of this order.

¶27

Dr. CSL. J 3 crr.R. No28lotl02t

¶28

¶29

7 . As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶30

shall stand closed.

¶31

oEP1?+rtSS+HkA I'TRUF.^COPYII (1)

¶32

SECTION^OFFICER

¶33

To, 1 The Judge^{Family Court - Cum - Vlll Additional Session Judge'}

¶34

Mahboobnagar' .. A---^^,,r^r Hidh Court^{for the State of} , ii,",#::ilaftgme',Bto+f '"'""'l lll

¶35

3.^{One CC to Sri C' Sharan Reddy' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶36

; ;;"^{cc to M/s G' sudha'Advocate toPucl}

5.^{Two CD CoPies}

{

HIGH COURT

Dr. CSL,J

DATED:0311112O22

/,4 11*9 STATE o
C)
1[ rtB 1t8 -1. r

¶44

ORDER

¶45

CRLRC.No.281 ot 20i¹

¶46

THE CRIMINAL^{REVISION CASEIS DISPOSED OF}

¶47

dpfd trt"

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Manzoorus Salam v. The State of Telangana

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

Burju Sudhakar Reddy Vs Vadla Balraj

Burju Sudhakar Reddy Vs B. Parthasaradhi

Smt. Qamer Banu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Majeed. Khan and another Vs State of Telangana

Chintapandu Naveen Kumar , Teenmar Mallanna Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Arshia Fatima and Another Vs The State of T.S. and Another