In this criminal revision, the High Court held that the trial court was correct in dismissing a mother-in-law's claim for maintenance from her widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 Cr.P.C., noting the law does not contemplate such a claim.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
,l l I it ,]
I I
IN H,GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AI HYDERABA;
*if;,t',',?,f,Islf,
BX,,UJi,?U,",If,t?,.",
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL cRt ,r{tN R IS N c SE NO 10 40F 20 14 (4) as the Court arnst Criminal Revisioof the the JurJJu dsment n Case dated under04_2-201Sections 392 & 401 of Cr.p C. R/W Section 1 9 Family cou rt,wa rangal4 made in MC.No.38 of 2013 o Between: n the file of
Between:
ffi,fl3fl,y,H;:43ffi
3;#l?,,!1ii,&::F6f,u,,:l*,1f,i",,.1,?&,,8*L,o""
AND
...PETITIONERYPETITIONER
l.A. NO: 10 F2014(CR LRCMP.NO:1 6050 F20141
...RESPONDENTS
.'''i,ift','tr':#q*'*,"+fl i#u,;fl,:ukfr tiftf ffiq#. Counsel for the petitionerthe petitioner
Counsel for the petitionerthe petitioner
co u n se r ro r the Respo n r",,Id;,;:::# ::::J[i":*o'1. The Court made the following:
rro * "
I I I I t i 1 l I
1 I
I l i
TIIEHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E' V' VENUGOPAL sroNCASE No.10140F2Ct)4 c INAL
\
ORDER:
ThisCriminal RevistonCase is filed againstthe judgment dated04.02'2014 in M'C'No 38 of 2013on the file of the learned Judge,FamiiY Court, Warangal (for short'"the trial Court")'
,/.fr
-)
20.O2.2OO9 due to ill-l'reaith while in service. Subsequently,tl.re petitioner and rcspotrdent No.1 jointly approached NPDCL authorities and subm itted a family certihcate, otherrelevant documents and applied for death benefits.After verilyingtl-re documcnts NPDCL autl-rorities released the deathbenefits.Latcr, respondent No. I also applied for ajob and on 'theno objection' given by the pctitior-rer the said authorities appointed respondent No.1 on compassionate grounds. Respondent No.1 isearning an amount of Rs. l3,0OO/ per month and neglected to maintainthe petitioner herein. Therefore, the present Revision.
I i
t
interference from this Court in unu,arrantcd and seeks to dismiss
the Criminal Petition
.1
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stanrl closed
Sd/.M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To
DL
frv1
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/08/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1014 of 2014
=$
qt
i:I ./
<br><br><br>I r/ ! l) lra -.
'-'i;--
-j--l
Crl. RC is dismissed
tq [?t,t>r'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a mother-in-law can claim maintenance from a widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
Whether the Criminal Revision is maintainable in view of lack of representation by the petitioner.
Whether the trial court committed any irregularity or perversity in dismissing the maintenance plea.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bahi Singh and others vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶29
Bahi Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mother-in-law
State of Andhra Pradesh
Daughter-in-law
E.V. VENUGOPAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
