Dismissed

Durgam Priyanka Mercy, Medak Dist. v. Durgam Issac, Guntur Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC3 Jul 2023CRLP/9633/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside a revision order dismissing a maintenance claim. The Court found the petition devoid of merits as the underlying revision was dismissed for lack of representation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to workout remedies available under law.

Durgam Priyanka Mercy, Medak Dist. Vs Durgam… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE^{THIRDDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO:9633^{OF 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Durgam Priyanka Mercy,^Wo.Durgam lssac^{O9c: Housewife Rl/o. H.No. 2-10-1|N1} Dayara Locblity Medak^{Town & Mandal MedakDistrict} ...PETITIONER/REVISION^PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

,| Durqam lssac, S/o. Venkateshwadu Occ:^{Employeein HR Office Air lndia -} Sati, Shamshanad Airport^{Fl/o. H.No.3-20l1'tl'1 Peddacheruvu Maseed Bazar} Lenin Nagar Narasaraopet Guntur District

¶11

2 The Statdof Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,^{High Court} fydelq[td-...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the cirgumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt maybe} pleased to call for the records and set aside the Docket order dated 07.11.2013 made in Crl.R.P.No. 25 of 2013 on the file of Vlll Additional District^{& Sessions} Judge at Medak.

¶13

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments^{of Sri RAJKUMAR} RUDRA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor^{for the} State of Telangana on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and^{of Sri G.V.S.Mehar} Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶14

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶15

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶16

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9633 OF 2014

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The preser-rt Crirninal Pr:rition is filed undr:r Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside tht,' docket order dated 07. 1 I .2013 in Cr1.R.P.No.25 of 2013 on thl. file of learned VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Medak

¶19

Heard Mr. Raj Kumai- IRudra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizararh Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at lt{cdak vide order dated 29.07.2O1O in M.C.No.20 of 2010 directed the respondent No. l-husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,OOO/ per month as maintenance to his girl child from the date of this order on or before l0th of every succeeding month arrd dismisscd the case against his wife, who is the petitioner herein, stating that she was a Lecturer in Joseph Degree and P.G. College and c'arning zrn amount of Rs.1l,O00 l- per month. ,A.ggrievecl by the s:rme, the wife preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before trre r(-'.r-necl VIII Additional District &

¶21

¶22

Scssions^{Judge, at Medak and the learned Judge vide order dated} 07.ll.2Ol3^{was pleased to dismissthe said petition stating that} there was^{no representation on behalf of the petitioner and} process was^{not fited. Therefore' the petitioner flled the present} Criminal^{Petitionand seeks toset aside the order dated} 07.ll.2Ol3^{passed by the first appellate Courtin Crt'R'P'No'25of} 2013 and^{prays for an opportunityto put forth her grievance} before the^{first appellate Court for proper adjudicationof the} matter.

¶23

In view^{of the submissionsmade by both the learned} counsel and^{on perusa'l of the paterialavailable on record' this} Court does^{not find any reason to interferewith the order dated} 07.ll.2Ol3^{passed by the first appellate Courtin Crt'R'P'No'25of} 2O 13. Therefore,^{the Criminal Petition is devoid of meritsand} liable to be^dismissed.

¶24

5.TheCriminalPetitionisdismissedaccordingly'However, the petitioner^{is at liberty to workoutthe remedies as available} under law.

)

: I i , I \

Miscellan,,'ous Pelitiols. pcncling if an_r', shall star-rd closed.

¶29

Sd/-P. PADIVANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

II-F,UE COPYII

,.--.'-D

SECTION OFFICER

The Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶35

One CC to Sri Raj Kumar Rudra Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G.V.S.Az'lehar Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶36

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:03/07/2023

S-TAXE O,q
1r\i1 r'
a.
4
'/
$t \tl N8
t
Y ,,,,,
,.)
t t)r. "r'

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CRLP.No.9633^{ot 2014}

¶44

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.

¶45

cgqs

¶46

*'te

Durgam Priyanka Mercy, Medak Dist. v. Durgam Issac, Guntur Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgam Priyanka Mercy, Medak Dist. v. Durgam Issac, Guntur Dist. and Ano

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

G.Subba Rao, Vs State of Telangana

T.Swarup Kumar Vs Sujatha Devi and 2 Others

Nalla Santosh Reddy, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

G. Shanker, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Sho, Alair P.S., Nalgonda Dist. and Ano

Smt. Sheeba Khan, Hyd., Vs Abdul Waheed Khan, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Golle , Golla Pullaiah, Karimnagar and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.