Disposed

Mohd Qamar Hussain v. Ruksana Sultana and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023CRLP/6783/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an order granting interim maintenance in a matrimonial dispute, noting the trial court was directed to decide the matter within four months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 6783 of 2017 disposed of; pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.

Mohd Qamar Hussain Vs Ruksana Sultana and State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

: L I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE^{FIFTH DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{6783 OF 2017}

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHD OAMAR HUSSAIN^{S/o. Mohd MazherHussain, aged 32 years, R/o.} SRT 150, Chandulal Baradari.^{Bahadurpura,Hyderabad}

¶10

.PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

RUKSANA SULTANA^{AND STATE OF TELANGANA, REP BY P P, WO'} . Mohd. Qamar Hussain. aged^{28 years, occ Housewife, Rlo 19-4-372181414'} Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana.,^{rep by rts Public Prosecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶14

..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under sectron^{482 of cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the Highcourt may} bepleasedtoquashorderpassedinCrl,MP'No,1914of2016inM'C.No'330of 2016 dated 27 -4-2017^{on the file of the Addl Metropolitan SessionsJudge for} the Trial of Jubilee^{Hills car Bomb Blaste case cum Additional Family court,} Hyderabad,

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF²⁰¹ 7(CRLPMP.^{NO:7009 0F 2017)}

¶17

Petition under Section^{482 cl Cr,P,C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memoranduln^{cf Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} be pleased to suspend^{the operationof the order passed in crl.MP.No.1914 of} 20.16 in M.C No 330 0f^{2a16 dated 27-4-20170n the file of the Additional} Metropolitan sessions^{Judgefor the Trial of Jubilee Hills car Bomb Blast case} cum Additionat^{Family Couit, Hyderabad, pending disposalof the main Criminal} Petition

¶18

ThisPetitioncomingonforhearing,uprlnperusingthelvlemorandumof Grounds of criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof srr A RAVI} sHANKAR ,Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of}

¶19

the Respondent No.1 and^{of Sri K sAl BABU Atlvocatefor the RespondentNo. 2}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SUREITDER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITTON NO. 6783 0F 2017

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

¶26

This Criminal^petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short'Cr.P.C.J to quash the order passed in Crl.M.p.No. 1914 of 2016 in M.C.No. 330 of 20 16 dated 2Z.O4.2OlT on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case_cum_Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 49g-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short^,the IpCJ and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short^.Dp Act).

¶27

The petitioner/husband is questioning the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.3O,OOO/- to the respondent/wife. However, this Court by order dated O4.0g.2OlZ, directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs. l5,OO0/_ per month and further directed the trial court to dispose of the main case itserf within a period of four months.

¶28

The said order was passed on O4.Og.2Ol7. None appears for the petitioner. The stage in the trial Court is not known.

¶29

¶30

Since there was an order to dispose of the main case within

¶31

four months, this petition is disposed of

¶32

As a sequel, miscellaneous petrtions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

"l*[1?ft?t":T$lP^t

,,TRUE^COPYI/

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

i e e H^{il s c a r}

¶40

r r^{h e Ad d r M eqoq gr il?.1Tds;lf,l;"'i} ?t nJi, l; t'i;*l Bomb^{Blaste Case cun}

¶41

2 One^{CC to SRIA RAVI SHANKAR Advccate IOPUCI} "fffJ'',#?

¶42

a On"^{CCto SRI '. K'SAlBABUAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶43

(rG) Advocate^{Hish court ror the}

¶44

- J,:?"??+:,y"i"fruf"t!t^i;osEcuroR

¶45

5 Two^{CD CoPies}

Dil G .L

HIGH COURT

KSJ

DATED:0510912023

s r
1
-a)'
11 r[1 2ul
ir
i)-):)
'. -'.
l
.i_.

ORDER

CRLP.No.6783 of²⁰¹⁷

DISPOSED OF

@)qu ffi

Mohd Qamar Hussain v. Ruksana Sultana and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Qamar Hussain v. Ruksana Sultana and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

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

N. Anitha Grace Vs The State of Telangana

Dastaglrl @ Kurva Dastagiri Vs The State of Telangana

Gudipati Thirupathi Reddy Vs The state of Telangana

M.v.Babu Vs State of Telangana and another

G.Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dommeti Venkata Swamy Vs The Sate of Telangana