Dismissed

Budewar Suresh, Nizamabad Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023CRLRC/1202/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under CrPC Sections 397 and 401, the High Court dismissed the challenge against a Family Court order granting maintenance to the wife and minor child, holding that the grant was appropriate despite claims regarding the child's earnings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 1202 of 2016 stands dismissed.

Budewar Suresh, Nizamabad Dt., Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1202 OF 2016

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C-, aggrieved^by the order dated 30-1-2016, passed by the Family Court -cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad in lril.C.No. 26 ot 2014.

¶8

Between:

¶9

BUDEWAR SURESH, S/o. Madhavarao, Private Employee, R/o. Yedpally Village and lVandal, Nizamabad District.

¶10

...PEflrONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF TELANGANA, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶13

Budewar Saritha, Wo. Suresh, Household, R/o. Yedpally Village and tt/andal, Nizamabad District, present residing at H.No. 5-4-43, Near Praja Shakthi Office, Nizamabad.

¶14

Budewar Shivacharan, S/o. Suresh, Student, R/o. Yedpally^Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District,^{present residing} at^H.No-5-4-43, Near^Praja Shakthi Office, Nizamabad.^petitioner No.3 is a minor, under the^guardianship of his natural mother i,e.,^petitioner No.2

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20'16(CRLRC MP. NO:1792OF20161

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay of execution of the order dated 30-1-2016,^passed by the Family Court -cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad in M.C.No. 26 of 2014.

¶18

Counsel for t-he Petitioner : SRl. MAHATHI MEDABALIMI

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 &³ : NONE APPEARED

¶21

The Court made the following

: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1202 oF 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to call for the recor-ds from the lower court and allow the revision by setting aside' the order dated 30.0r.2o16 in M.c.No.2 6 of 2or4 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court_cum_Additional District & Sessions Court, at Nizamabad (for short, ,,the trial court").

¶28

Heard Mr. Mahathi Medabalimi, learned counsel for the petitioner ar-rd Mr. Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant pubric Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife was solemni zed on 2O.OI.2OO8 at Arya Samaj, Doolpet, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with respondent No.2. After birth of respondent No.2 the petitioner and his fami ly members harassed respondent No. 1 physically and mentally lor want of additional dowry. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 hled M.C.N o.26 of 2Ol4 beforethe trial court and the learned Judge vide order dated 30.OI.2076 granted maintenance

of Rs.3,000/- to respondent^No.1 and^{Rs.4,OOO/to respondent} No.2 from the dale of order.^Aggrieved by^{the same, tl-rc present} Revision.

¶34

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submrtted that the} petitioner is an employee in a super^{market and earning a meager} amount of Rs.4,000/-^{per month and respondentNo'2 is u'orking} in Akila Bharateeya Bhagvad^{Geeta PracharMandali,at Geeta} Bhavan at Nizamabad as a^{sales supervisorand drau'inga} monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-.^{Therefore, soughtto set asidethe} order passed by the trial^{Court as respondent No 2 has sufficient} means to maintain herself.

¶35

Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor submittedthat the} trial Court after appreciating^{the oral and documentaryevidence} available on record in^{proper perspectiverightly passedthe order} dated 30.01.2016 in^{M.C.No.26 ol 2014. Therefore, soughtto} dismiss the Revision.

¶36

The trial Court on^{behalf of the prosecution examined} PWs.1 and 2 and marked^{Exs.Pl to P3 1. On behalf of the defense} examined PWs. I to 3^{and marked Exs. Rlto R4. On careful} examination of the^{materialavailable on recordrightly passedthe} impugned order stating^{that though respondentNo'2 is better}

I ;'

qualified than the petitioner, due to hike in prices of the essential commodities and the rise in cost of living standards of people day by day, it would be appropriate to grant maint.enance of Rs.3,O00/ 1o respondent No.1 and Rs.4,OOO/- to respondent No.2

¶41

A perusal of the record shows that the matter pertains to the year, 20 t6. This Court vide order dated 02.06.2016 granted interim stay of the impugned order, on condition of the petitioner depositing tkre arrears of maintenance calculating at the rate of 50% of the amount ordered by the trial Court per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in three equal installments from the month of Jurly, 20 16 and continuing to pay the maintenance every month to respondent Nos.2 and 3 at the above rate, on or 1S before 1O,h of every succeeding month. Till date nothing available on r:ecord to show that the interim order passed by this Court is comolied with.

¶42

Upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the maintenalce granted to respondent Nos.l and 2 is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people have escalated

-""rlx

:,-

lo a larger extent- Hcnce, I do ne6 tind any reason to interferc with the ordcr dated 30.O1.2016 in M.C.No.26 of 2014 passed by

¶47

the trial court.

¶48

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed

¶50

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶51

SD/- K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Family Court -cum- Additional District and^{Sessions Judgeat} Nizamabad.

¶56

2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶57

3 One CC to SRl. MAHATHI^{MEDABALIMI, Advocate} [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies Pcsd BSR }"-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710812023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1202 ot 2016

¶63

$,T At F OA
ol 11 NiM .))
o
D

¶64

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE >9 alL

Budewar Suresh, Nizamabad Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budewar Suresh, Nizamabad Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

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

Saayani Venkata Sesh Arun Kumar Vs Smt Gunthi Revathi and Another

Smt P.Jhansi Rani and Another Vs State of a.P., and Another

Lagishetty Yadagiri, Vs Lagishetty Bal Laxmi, and 3 Others

Mohd.Jahangir Ali, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano

Mohd.Jahangir Ali , Saleem, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano

Smt. More Sandya Rani Vs Sri Syed Ali Murtaza Rizvi