This is a criminal revision against a matrimonial judgment granting maintenance and compensation to the wife. The High Court found no infirmity in the orders as record supported the grant and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision was dismissed, maintaining the orders below granting maintenance and compensation.
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.
[3251 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
IVONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMIN L REVISION CASE NO: 1189 0F 2014
Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the D.V.C. Crl.A.No.1330 of 2017 dated1110112018on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Metropolitan SessionsJudge atHyderabad preferredagainstthe Judgment made in D.V.C.No.317 ot 2012dated 06il112O17on the file of the Court of the ll Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Between:
Kamlesh Jambula Jothi @ KamaleshwarJambavan,Occ. Unemployed,Rl/o.H.No. 263,5'n Main,2no Block, HBR Layout, Banglore-560043. ...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENTNO.1
AND
.....*""oondenu comprainant
...RESP.NDENT
lA NO: 1 oF 2018
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the HighCourt may be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment passed in DVC Crl.Appeal No.1330 of 2017 by Hon'ble lV Additional MetropolitanSessions Judge at Hyderabad dt.11.0'l .2018 against the Judgment made inDVC No. 317o'f 2012on the file of the lll Metropolitan tVagistrate, Hyderabad,dated 06-1 1-2017
For the Petitioner : SRI M.HAMSA RAJ, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1 :
For the Respondent No.2 :PUBLIC - PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
THE'HONOURABLESRI JUSTICEK.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo.1189 OF 2018
ORDER:
the 2. Both theCourts below lound that
petitioner/husbandwas working inAccenture'company, Bangaloreand was drawing salary of Rs'60,000/- p m"On the said basis,the Courtsfound that anamount of Rs.1O,OOO/-formaintenarce, Rs'5,OO0/- foralternate accommodationand Rs.5,0O,OO0/-towards compensation would meetthe endsof justice.
)
n,ife u,as neglected and thc husband was in a position to pay the maintenar-rce and compensation granted, I do not find any infirmity in tae orders of the Courts below.
4- There are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Courts below alrd accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any_ shall
stand closeC.
\
Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUH:G'SrRAR //TRUE copy//
SECT|ON OFFTCER
To
Kj.
tPA
t
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/06/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1189 of2018
e srA.lc
{
o al
$t $EPlm
,,J
,. ,ii
'i. t-'..... ^,.,(-':
.,i , - '- .
DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.
wffi4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders granting maintenance, accommodation charges, and compensation to the wife require interference in criminal revision.
Whether the finding that the husband was earning sufficient salary to meet the claimed amount warrants quashing of the lower court orders.
Kamlesh Jambula Jothi
The State of Telangana
Justice K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
