The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to register an application to set aside a maintenance order under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C.
The criminal revision case was dismissed with miscellaneous applications closed.
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.
[32se ]
I I t I I II l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 107 OF 2010
' Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 40'1 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 30/1 1/09 made in MP SR 2398/09 in MC No.214 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case -cum- Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
Tatineni Gopala Krishna Murthy, S/o T.Rama Rao, Retd. Employee, Fyo'l-8-40i1, North Kamala Nagar, E.C.l.L., Hyderabad.
AND
...PET|TIONERyPETTTONER
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
CRLRCMP. NO: 161 OF 2010
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the enforcement of the orders in MC.No. 214 of 2OO4 on the file of the Additional Family Court, at Metropolitan Criminal Courts Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Cd.R.C., preferred by the petitioner herein.
For the Petitioner : SRI G.RAMA SARMA, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 : SRI KHAJA ZIAUDDIN, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
j i I t i l Ii I
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No,1O7 of 2O1O
ORDER:
No rcDr-3sentation on behalf of thc petitioner
2
dated O4.O3.20O8 lurthcr disclosed thar during the course of hearing, the u,ifc of the peLitioner has not pressed her claim to award mairrtenance to herself. However, she has contested the petition seeking directio.n to her daughter i.e., respondent_ No. 1 herein and accordingly the trial Court has granted an amount of Rs.4,OOO/- per month to re spondent No.1. The petitioner has mentioned in SR.No.2398 of 2OO9 that the mother of respondent No. I has filed an application in O.p.No.499 of 2OO4 on the file of thc Family Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was dismissed..l'hc trial Court on considering the entire material on record has concluded that the petition under Section 127 (2) Cr.p.C., cannot be maintained and thereby refused to register the same and the petition was rejected.
3
re,,,ise the orders 1;asscci lt1. rhc samc Court under Section 127 (2) Cr.P.C., u.hich is not pcrmissible.
Misccllarneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
To
o=",iflJr'J{YXi8 //TRUE COPY/I /- L-.]8, SECTION OFFICER
Kj
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610212O23
a e STATE
q
-:c,J 19 lu\ N8
A
).
i
D i: !)f ,-/'
ORDER
CRLRC.No.107 of 2010
THE CRL.R.C. IS DISMTSSED.
))
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's order declining to register an application under Section 127(2) Cr.P.C.
Whether a father can recall an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing him to pay maintenance to his minor daughter.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Tatineni Gopala Krishna Murthy
T. Rajya Lakshmi
Smt. T. Vijaya Lakshmi
State of Andhra Pradesh
Dr. Justice D.Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
