Dismissed

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig v. Md. Nazimunnisa

Telangana HC6 Sept 2023CRLRC/125/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order awarding Rs. 4,000 monthly maintenance to a minor child, the High Court examined the petitioner's earnings. Assuming a driver's income of Rs. 15,000, the Court found the awarded amount was not excessive and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition and the miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent were dismissed.

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig Vs Md. Nazimunnisa — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13217 1

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^{125 OF 2O19}

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section^{397 & 401of CrPC aggrieved by the} order passed in Dated.^{03-07-2018, M.C.No.9 ol 2017 on the file of the Judge,} Family Court, Khammam

¶8

Between:

¶9

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig, S/o.^{Khasim Baig, Aged 35 y,ears, Occ} private Driver, AVR Transport, Mee^{Seva complex,Opp. Old BSNL} Office, Gandhichowk,^{Khammam City and Diskict.}

¶10

...PETtTTONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Md. Nazimunnisa, W/o.^{Khadeer Mirza Baig Aged 29 years,Occ.Housewife,}

¶13

2 Md. Sana Mirza, D/o.^{Khadeer Mirza Baig, Aged about 4 years, Occ. student,} Resp. No.2 being minor^{rep. by her MNG, REsp. No.1}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶15

3 State of Telangana, through^{Public prosecutor,HighCourt, Hyderabad}

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶18

Petition under Section 482 CrPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} Stay the operation of the order^{passedin M.C.No.9of 2017 d|.03.07 2018 on the} file of Judge, Family Court,^Khammam.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{M. V. VENU}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{NONE APPEARED}

¶21

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKAFAMJI CRINTINAL REVISION CASE No.12s OE2Ot9 ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case has bcen trled challe nging the order dated 03.07 .20"18 in M.C.No.9 of 2011 or1 the file of thc Judge,

¶24

Family Court, I(hammam

¶25

Heard Mr. M.V.Venu, learned counsel for thr revision Pcuuoner.

¶26

In the impugned t>rder, the rcspondcnt No.2 rvhc,.is minor son of the revision petitioner has bee n granted monthly mirintenance at Rs.4,000/- pcr month.

¶27

The revrsion petitioncr submits that he being a ,lriver, the payment of Rs.4,000/- per month rorvards maintenance is causing

¶28

hardship and the quantum arvarded is excessivc.

¶29

I have carefully perused the materials on record

¶30

(t. The rcspondent No.2 being minor his inability^t, r^maintain

¶31

himself and statutorl. liabil-iq, ol revision petitione r to rr aintain his

I f

NT crlrc 125 201

minor son is indisputable. In tact, the revision petitioner is not

¶37

contested his liabititv

¶38

In regard to quantum, admittedJy, rhe revision pctitroner is driver by profession and what is his exact monthly income has not bcen set out during the maintenance case proceedings. That being the position, the Court is lcft with no option but to make some guess work. At any rate the carnings o[ a driver would be better than a Manual labour, hcnce a monthly u,age of Rs.15,000/- can be

¶39

safely presumed.

¶40

Having regard to the possible earnings oF the revision petitioner and the agc o[ respondent No.2, the necessities at that age, and the cost o[ living, granting Rs.4,000/- towards monthly ma.intenance in any way can be heid as exccssive. In this view, no

¶41

impropriety or illegalitl. is found in the discretion exercised by the Family Court. Resultantly, in absence of merit, the revision is dismissed.

¶42

As a sequel, pcnding misccllancous pctitions stands closed.

¶43

Sd/. CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY"

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judge,^{FarnilY Court, Khammam}

¶48

Z. fwo CCi to the^{Public Pros€cutor, HighCourt for the State of Telangana} at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶49

1. One CC to^{SRl. M. V} . VENU, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD^CoPies . tr-

¶50

HlGH COURT

¶51

DATED: OOl09l2O23

¶52

'-. i.
)e ),
1 4 rii\i 2[24
i;;)
'' .,/
, .,/

¶53

ORDER

¶54

CRLRC.No.125 of 2019

¶55

DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C

¶56

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig v. Md. Nazimunnisa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig v. Md. Nazimunnisa

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

Mohammed Tanweer Siddiqui Vs State of Telangana

Pogula Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Gouse Pasha Vs Sajida Parveen And Another

Srikanth Kumar Jilla Vs The State of Telangana

Rajender Yadav Vs Smt Ayesha Fathima

Mohd Raheemuddin Vs State of Telangana