Dismissed

B. Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs

Telangana HC14 Jul 2023CRLRC/1309/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC. The case challenged a maintenance and domestic violence order from the Family Court. Despite the petitioner's absence in intermediate hearings, the court noted he was not prosecuted simpliciter. The High Court found no merit in the revision as the granted maintenance was appropriate given curr

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any stand closed.

B. Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd Vs P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32es ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIoN cAsE NQi13ll9 Or20J4

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated. 2OlO3l2O1 4 made in Crl. A No. 55 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Judge and Family Court-Cum-Vlll & Additional District & Sessions. Judge at Hyderabad, Preferred against eh Order passed in D.V.C No. 2011 1 dated.251412011 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ivlhabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. B. Nagi Reddy, Occ: Government Employee R/o. APHB, HlG, Flat No.ll Block No.lV, Baghlingampally Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶13

Smt. B. Kishore, W/o. B. Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 35 years, House wife, Rlo. 1-5-2212 New Town Mahabubnagar

¶14

B. Sudharth Reddy, S/o. B. Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 6^years, Occ:Student,^pJo. 1-5-2212 New Town lvlahabubnagar

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O14(CRLRCMP. NO: 2089 OF 2014)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings consequent to the order^passed in DVC.No. 2012011, dated 25.04.2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar and confirming the orders in Crl.A.No.55/2013, dated 26,03.2014 on the file of the Family court cum Vlll Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar to the extent of an amount of Rs. 3,0001 towards rent,^pending disposal of the Crl.RC

¶18

dounsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl.D. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRl. VIZARATHALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC} PROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶21

¶22

THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.13O9 OF 2OL4

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2014 in Crl.A.No.55 of 2Ol3 on the file of Family Court-cun-VIII Adclitional District ald Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar (for short, "appellate Court") 1n modifying the order dated 25.)4.2073 in D V.C.No.2O of 20 11 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar (for short, "trial Court")

¶25

Heard Mr. V izarath Ali. 1t:arned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶26

There r,r,'as no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 16.06.2023, 23.06.2023 and O'7 .O7.2023. Even today also there is no representatio e on behalf of the petitioner in spite of listing the matter under thr: caption, "for dismissal". Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Cc,urt in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Utter Pradeshl ", lr,herr:in it was cate gorically held that the High Court

¶27

' 11996)^{4 Supreme} Court lases 720

¶28

¶29

\ rl'-+i
<br>_.;:. ,

¶30

-! cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed M.C.No.1O of 2011 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Court, at Mahabubnagar seeking maintenance against the petitioner. The learned Judge vide order dated 10.IO.20I1 partly allowed the M.C. by entitling respondent No.2 to claim maintenance @ Rs.3,OOO /- per month from petitioner. Respondent No.3 was entitled to claim maintenance @' Rs.2,O0O/- per month from petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay Rs.S,OOO/- as maintenance in total from the date of filing of M.C. along with costs. He was directed to pay maintenance arnount to respondent Nos.2 and 3 commencing from the month of November, 2017 payable on or before 10.11.2011. He was further directed to pay the maintenance €unount every month on or before 10ff either by depositing in the Bank Account of respondent No.2 to be furnished by her within a week from the day by serving a copy of the sarne to the petitioner or by sending amount by way of money order after deducting money order commission. The petitioner was permitted to pay the arrears in three (3) equal monthly installments, commencing from the

¶32

)

¶33

month of Jaluary, 2Ol2 and rvas further directed to pay costs of Rs.50O/ to respondent Nos.2 rmd 3.

¶34

However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 also preferred D.V.C.No.2O of 2011 on the filr: of the trial Court. The trial Court vide order dated 25.04.2013 in D.V.C.No.20 of 2O71, directed the petitioner-husband herein not to commit any domestic violence against respondt:nt No.2-w-ife and further directed him to provide the shared house at P1,:t No. 1 1, Block No.IV HIG, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad by facilitating her stay ,"r,ith all^' comforts. If it vr as not possible, the petitioner was directed to provide a rented house to his uife according to her standards and rent of Rs.3,000/ per month shall be payable by him towards accommodation ,tf respondent No.1 from May, 2013 onwards by way of deposit irLto her account. Respondent No.1 is directed to furnish her banl: account to enable the petitioner to deposit the monthly rent in 1er account. T'he petitioner was further directed to transfer his hrLlf share of iand in the name of respondent No.1 within one m onl.h from the date of the order. The petition in respect of othel reliefs and against other respondents was dismissed. Aggrie ved by the sarne, the petitioner-herein preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.No.SS of 2(r13 on the file of appellate Court.

¶35

¶36

The appellate Court vide judgment dated 2O.O3.2O14 1n Crl.A.No.SS of 2013 modified the residence order directing the petitioner to provide rent of Rs.3,000/ - per month towards accommodation of respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein from May, 2013 instead of providing shared house in the said house. The appeal with regard to other reliefs concerned was dismissed by conlirming the order dated 25.04.2013 in D.V.C.No.20 of 2011 on the file of Court below. Challenging the same, the present Revision.

¶37

7 . A perusal of the record shows that the Maintenalce Case pertains to the year 2O1l ald the learned Judge after appreciating the entire material available on record rightly awarded maintenance vide order dated 10. LO.2OI1 in M.C.No. 1O of 2Ol1 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cumAdditional Sessions Court, at Mahabubnagar.

¶38

B. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the appellate Court ought to have adjusted the rental arnount payable with the maintenance amount granted vide order dated 10.10.2011 in M.C.No.1O of 2011 and submits that he had to maintain old aged parents and he was the only earning member of the family. Therefore, seeks to allow the Revision by setting

¶39

)

¶40

aside the order dated 20.O3.2014 in Crl.A.No.55 of 2013 passed by the lower aplrellate Court.

¶41

Upon careful considerat on of the entire material available on record and after hearing the submissions made by both the Iearned counsel, this Court is of the view that the maintenance granted to res;pondent Nos,2 ald 3 is very meagre and appropriate. Ch ellenging such meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards ol the people have escalated. Hcnc:, I do not lind any reason to interfere with the' order dated 20O3.2Ol4 in Cr1.A.No.55 of 2013 on the file of Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar 1n modifying the order dated 25.04.2013 in D.V.C.No.2O of 2011 on the lile of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. Therelore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision as the same is devoid of merits.

¶42

Accordingly, the Crimlnal Revision Case is dismissed

¶43

Miscelianeous Petitions, oending if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/- CH. VENKATESWARULU DEPUJY REGISTRAR //TIRUE COPY' SEciTdN oFFICER

¶45

To, The Judqe Famllv Courl _Crrm Vlll Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagrar.(WithRecordsa)^"-"*' I he J^udicial-:irst Class lr,4aqistratb at Mahabubnoar.

¶46

3 Pubric^protecua".., H,s;. c;;t i#'Stare or reransana, ar ly3.?"n:?._li,

¶47

54 gnu lwo CD 99 Cop r-o'Sri es 6 Bhaskar Rerrdy. {dy666te [OPUC]

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712023

ORDER

--:.--fAl
s q
o
<br>!
I
I
i
\ r, tttls
r)
:/

¶54

CRLRC.No.1309 of 2014

¶55

DISMISSING THE CRIM!NAL REVISION^CASE gq"z Aeffiaa

B. Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Prabhakar Reddy, Hyd v. P.P., Hyd and 2 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kanakaiah Vs The Managing Director Tsrtc

Chinna Babu, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

V.Aravindh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana.,rep.,Pp

Kambam Venkat Reddy , Venkaiah Vs the State of Ap., and 2 Others

Y.Venu Babu, Krishna Dt., Vs Mrs.Swathi Reddy, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Smt. Rani Bahi and Anothers Vs State of Tg., Rep by Its P.P and 3 Others