Dismissed

Smt. Savithri, v. Satyanarayana Thakre

Telangana HC31 Jul 2023CRLRC/1195/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision appealing a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The petitioners sought enhancement from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 5,000 monthly. The Court held the lower award sufficient, directing the petitioner to approach the trial court for enhancement instead in the criminal revision.

What did the court decide?

Petition for maintenance enhancement dismissed; liberty to seek enhancement in the trial court.

Smt. Savithri, Vs Satyanarayana Thakre — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s9 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

:PRESENT:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1195 OF 2013

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 25-03-2013 made in MC.No.1 18 of 2011 on the file of the court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. Savithrl, Wo Satyanarayan Thakre, R/o H.No.8-3-169/303, Siddharth Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Satyanaiayana Thakre, S/o Kishan Das, Occ Retired, R/o H.No.13-3-609/9, Beside Mallanna Gudi, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP. NO:^'1819 OF 2013)

¶16

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1"t Respondent herein to pay Rs.4,500/- per month to the petitioner towards interim maintenance pending the above Crl.R.C.,

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. THAKUR SINGH

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri VIZARATH ALI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V.^VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No.1195 OF 2013

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revi sion Case is filed^{seelcingto modifythe} Order passed in M.C.No.11B of 2011, dated^{25.03.2013 on the} file of the learned Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge for} Trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family^{Cc,urt cum XXIII} Additional Chief Judge Hyderabad^{by increasing t'1e maintenance} amount from Rs.2,00O/- per month to Rs.5,000/-^{per month.}

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioner arrd Sri^Yizarath, Ali, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{appe ring forthe} respondent-State and learned counsel appearing^{for unofficial} respondent. Perused the record

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage^{of the} petitioner herein with respondent No.1 herein was^performedon 09.03. 1978. The petitioner and respondent^{No.1 are blessedwith} three male children. The petitioner is living^{separately from the} respondent No. 1 since 2001.^{Thc' petitioner} and^{her youngest} son are living at Yousufguda, Hyderabad.^{RespondentNo.1 is a} Bank Emplolee.-- ht relired^{from service recently and got} retirement benefits to a tune of^{Rs. 15,00,0OO/} .^{The respondent}

I I

l'E&&.

)

is misusing the^said amount by^{spending the same on nephews.} The respondent neglected the^petitioner and her children.^The respondent is drawing a monthly^pension of^{Rs.20,OOO/-.The} respondent^. did not^provide any^{maintenance to the petitioner.} The respondent is financially sound^{still he refused to provide} maintenance to the petitioner and^{her children. The petitioner} approached the respondent asking for^some sort^{of financial help} for her maintenance but the^respondent did^{not botherto provide} maintenance to the petitioner.^Hence, the^{petitionerfiled} M.C.No.118 of 2O11^{seeking Rs.S,OOO/- per month towards her} maintenance. The learned^{Court below allowed M.C.No.118 of} 2011, awarding an amount of^{Rs.2,O0O/-per month to the} petitioner towards her maintenance and^{directedthe respondent} to pay the maintenance^{on or before1O} '^{of everycalendar} month.

¶31

4- Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the^{cost of} living standards of the^{people has been escalated intoday's} context. Therefore, filed the^{present revision} case seeking to increase^{the maintenance} amount^{from Rs.2,O0O/-per month to} Rs.5,000/-^per month-

¶32

¶33

This Court upon careful consideration of the entire material on record and after^{hearing the submissions made} by both^the learned counsel is^{of the view} that the^{maintenance awarded by} the Court below is^{sufficient and} appropriate.^{The petitioner is at} liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial^Court seeking enhancement^{of maintenance.} Be it^viewed from any angle, this criminal^{revisioncase is devoid of} merits^and liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

/TTRUE^COPY//

¶37

Sd/. M MANJULA DEPUTY^REGISTRAR tu

¶38

SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The^{Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judgef-or the Trial of JHCBBC-cum-} '' nioiii""riiamiry coirrt-cu, xirrr Additional^{Chief Judge, HYderabad'} z. ?i,l''b"iJ',"in"'punrt^{pio.""rto,High court for the state of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶41

ijl'; cCi;5;irilAKUR^{sINGH'Advocate[oPUC]}

¶42

Two^{CD CoPies}

k,s

HIGH COURT

EWJ

DATED:31 10712023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1195 of 2013

¶50

1 e S TA rF
c
o z
d ze No! 2023 .L

t: q p -r (' ( o

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶52

20<br>

Smt. Savithri, v. Satyanarayana Thakre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savithri, v. Satyanarayana Thakre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vuppula Shailesh Kumar, Bangalore Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Radhari Ashok Kumar, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Radhari Sujatha, Warangal Dist. and Ano

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.

Kothakonda Saritha, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Raghavendra Kothakonda, Hyd and Ano

M/S V.S.N. Plastics, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

K. Sanjiva Reddy, Hyd Vs Smt. K. Rajini, Hyd and Ano