Dismissed

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth v. Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

Telangana HC16 Jun 2022CRLRC/510/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an appellate judgment that reduced maintenance awarded to two daughters of the petitioner wife from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month based on his pension income, holding it was not arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed; impugned appellate judgment dated 08.02.2019 stands upheld.

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth Vs Kadarla Lalitha Kumari — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE^{SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY}

¶5

GRIMIN AL^{REVISION CASENO:5'10oF 2019}

¶6

Crl.Revision^{Case UnderSection397 & 4Ol of Cr'P'C' aggrievedby the} Judgment^{dated 8-2-2019;;A;i'A'Nt'85 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the} Principal^{Sessions Lrag",'ilIt;ngui*oJitvingth.e order dated22-01-2018in} crl.M.P. No.^{433 of 2018 i; ;vC N;' g3 of 26tz-on the file of the court of the Vl} nJJiii."rr^{Judicial Magistrate of First Classat Warangal'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tirioioalli t tni-versitv. Krishnakanth, R/o^{H.No s/o Ramaiah' 3b:;-ili, ' a-ged Eopalapuram ' about64 years FCl ' occ Professor' Colony' Road KakatiyaNo l '} ff anirnr(onOa,^{Warangal City and Dist'} ...pETlTlONERy^{Appellant / Respondent/ RespondentRespondent}

¶9

...pETlTlONERy^{Appellant / Respondent/ RespondentRespondent}

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Assistant Professor, Kadarla Lalitha^{Kumari, xaratrvX w/o u"i'dititv' Krishna Kanth'..aged ny"'H lio 35-2-1 about 17' 47 Gopalapuramyears' occ} FCI colonv, Road^{No.1, H"il;;k;;J;'Warangal citv and Dist' Presently} c/o. Principal,^{Dept.' of p?jrii'J"r"6"L-'icL'UniGrsitv'ofP'G Collese for} il;;"','ffi^{'k;iiyaUniversity,"diiu"ir,,i,iffi} Bl33;Y-TllSilSlYB"?itl"".

¶12

2 The State^{of Telangana,rep by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt' Hyderabad}

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF²⁰²¹

¶14

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fited in suppott .i ft," p"iiti*, Ir,". Hig-r'Court maybe pleased to} receive the^{additional d";;;;;i;ii.' Cr.r'i'c No'stolzotg ie wedding card'} ,riti"g"^{photosfamily photo and Aadhaarcard'}

¶15

IA NO : 2 OF²⁰¹⁹

¶16

Petition under^{Section15'1 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{fited in suppJrt} "i^{ir," p.iition,-'ir,"- High Court} 'es ot zota dl. 8-2-2019^{may be} on^pleased the file^to of suspend the^{Judgmentp".r"oln'cr[n.r.ro.} The , Principal^{Sessionsil;;,W;;sai modified the order in Crl M'P'No433 of} 2018 in DVC^{No.gS ot zoiTJnir'" tit""or the Vl AdditionalJ'M'F'C' at Warangal'} aii.a Zz-l-Zol8,^{pendingdisposal of the Criminal RevisionCase '}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. ADAM

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI G. SUNDARA RAJAN

¶19

Counsel Forthe Respondent No.2 : THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

.I-H I' IIONOTJRA ItI- T- SIt I J T]STICI.] A.SAN'TI{OSTI REDDY

¶22

('Rl-.R.C.No.5 l0 OF 201 9

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

l'his criminal rcvision case^{is directed against the judgment} dated 08.02.2019 in Crl.A.No.85^{of 2018, on the file of the} learned Principal Sessions^{Judge, Warangal,wherein the said} appeal filed by^{the petitionerherein was allowed,modiffing the} order dated 22.01.2018^{in Crl.M.P.No.433of 2018 in D'V'C'No'93} of 2017, on the^{file of the learnedVl-AdditionalJudicial} Magistrate of the^{F irst Class, Warangal, and directing the appellant} to pay Rs.10,000/-^{each to the two daughtersof respondentNo'l}

¶25

herein towards maintenance'

¶26

Heard both sides.^{Perused the record'} 3. Respondent No.i^{is the wife of the petitioner herein' She} filed D.V.C.No.93 of^{2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of} Women from Domestic^{Violence Act, 2005 before the leamed} Vl-Additional Judicial^{Magistrate of the First Class seeking} protection and maintenance^{under Sections18 to 22 of the said Act'} A month after filing^{of the DVC case,respondentNo' l herein filed} Crl.M.P.No.433^{of 2018 in D.V.C.No.93 of 2017 under Section20}

¶27

¶28

of the ,.\ct seeking n)aintenance ol Rs.50,000/_ per month cach per month to the two daughters olrespondent No. I in order to meet the college fees, expenses etc., of her trvo daughters.

¶29

-[-he learned Magistrate after considering the lacts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each per month to the two daughters of respondent No.l towards maintenance, college fee, expenses etc., till the disposal of the main case. Not satisfied with the order passed by the leamed Magistrate, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned principal Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crl.A.No.85 of 2018.

¶30

The leamed Sessions Judge after considering the material available on record and the pension drawn by the petitioner herein allowed the appeal in part by modiling rhe order dated 22.0r.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.p.No.433 of 20lg in D.V.C.No.93 of 2017 to the extent of maintenance amount and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/_ each per month to the two daughters of respondent No. l. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present revision before this court.

¶31

)

¶32

The learned counscl lbr thc petitioner contends that thc second daughter is pursuing her ph.D., course and receiving fetlowship amount of Rs.g0,000/_ pcr rronth, apart from getting an amount of Rs.2 lak_hs pcr annum towards research grant and as such she is not entitled to receive maintenance amount. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had retired from service and is a senior citizen receiving pension after deduction of loan amount which was obtained for construction of house and that the pension he is receiving is not sufflcient to maintain himself. Learned counsel fufther contends that the first daughter is married and she is not entitled for any rnaintenance. l{e, therefore, prays to set aside the judgment passed by the appellate court. 7. On the other hand, the leamed counsel for respondent No.l contends that the order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality and the appeltate courl has wrongly taken into consideration the eaming capacity of the petitioner and has erroneously reduced the maintenance amount from Rs.50,000/_ to Rs.10,000/- each per month granted to the two daughters of respondent No. I and prayed to sustain the order passed by the trial couft.

¶33

¶34

6 Now, it is to be sccn whether the itnpugncd order passcd by the appellate coult suffers fiom any illegaiit.r,. irreqularity or infirmity and needs interfbrence?

¶35

9' Undisputedry, the petitioner is husband or.respondent No. I, their marriage having been solemnized on 2g.09. 1994 and out of the said wedlock, they were bressed with two daughters. Later, diflerences arose between them, Ieading to filing ot. D.V.C.No.93 of 2017.

¶36

As seen from the record, the petitioner is a retired professor and drawing substantiar pension. The pension ccrtificate dated 08.01.2018 filed by the petitioner would show that he is drawing a net pension of Rs.59,339/. The appellate couft atter taking into consideration the said certificate has rightly awarded the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each per month to the two daughters of respondent No. l. Further, the DVC case filed by respondent No.l is still pending and the maintenance order is passed only in the miscellaneous petition filed by respondent No.l. the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the first daughter is married and she is not entitled for maintenance and that the second daughter is receiving fellowship amount of Rs.g0,000/

¶37

I I

¶38

¶39

per month, apart fiom getting an arrount of Rs.2 lakhs per annum towards research grant and she is also not entitled tbr nraintenance. The said contentions have ro be agitated by rhe petitioner by filing appropriate petition and the petitioner is given Iiberty to file such petition before the trial court in the pending DVC case for modification of the orders on lhe mainte nance granted in view of the changed circumstances and the said contentions cannot be taken into consideration at this stage for deciding this petition.

¶40

1i. For the foregoing reasons, this court rs of the view that the judgment passed by the appellate courl doe s not suffer from any infirmity or illegality waranting interference by this court.

¶41

The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶42

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶43

Sd/-K.SREENIVASA RAO JOINT GIST R //TRUE COPY//

¶44

SECTION FICER

¶45

¶46

The Principal Sessions Judqe, Waranoal.

¶47

The Vl Additional Judicial Flrst Class"lUagistrate at Warangal.

¶48

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court atllyderabad for the-State of Telangana (OUT)

¶49

One CC to SRI M. ADAM, Advocate tOpUCl

¶50

One CC to SRI. G. SUNDARA RAJAN, Advocate [OPUC]

¶51

Two CD Copies

¶52

One Spare Copy

A$.

)

HIGH^COURT

DATED:1^6tOGl2022

1 7 S-1"AI5 .t
t<br>,'1
a 11 r]B ?[u
-)
:l

¶58

ORDER

¶59

CRLRC.No.510^{of 2019}

¶60

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.

¶61

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth v. Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirigipalli Krishnakanth v. Kadarla Lalitha Kumari

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

M. Vijay Kumar Vs The State Acb

K.Sudhakar Goud Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp

E.Ashwathama Reddy, Vs The State of A.P.

Myneni Surendra, Usa., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Tigura Sankar Reddy Vs the State, through Sho., and Another

Mohana Rayalu Vs the State of a.P., Rep., by Its Pp and Another