Dismissed

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023CRLRC/1394/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the Criminal Revision petition seeking to challenge the Family Court's order dismissing the wife's maintenance claim. The Court held that revision is impermissible and granted liberty to approach the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Court below. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stood closed.

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1394 OF 2013

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 &401 of Cr.P.C.^againstthe Judgment dated 02-09-2011 made in M.C.No. 74 of 2009 on^{the file of the Courtof} the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, Wo. N.Jayakrishna, Occ Household,^{Rl/o. H.No. 12-1-} 1500/A, Shanti Nagar, N.Lalaguda, Secunderabad^- 500⁰¹⁷

¶10

Master N.Adithya, S/o. N.Jayakrishna, Occ Student,

¶11

(petitioner No.2, being minor, represented by his mother and natural guardian, petitioner No.1) Rr/o. H.No. 12-1-1500/4, Shanti Nagar, N.Lalaguda, Secunderabad^- 500 017

¶12

...PETTTTONERS(PETTTTONERS)

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of A.P., Rep., by the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court, Hyderabad.}

¶15

2 N.Jayakrishna, S/o. N.Venkateswarlu, Occ Private Employee,^{R/o. H.No.52} C292, Sachivalay Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad^{- 500} 070

¶16

...RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENTS)

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 : PP Rep., by Mr. VIZARATH ALI Asst., PP

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 : None appeared

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUC'OPAL

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1394 OF 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sect ion 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order in M.C.No.74 of 2OO9, dated O2.O9.2O 1 1 passed by the learned Judge,^F zrmily Court, Secunderabad.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2 Perused the rer:orcl

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner No.1 herein with respondent No.2 herein was solemnized on 31.O5.2OO2 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave Rs.2,OO,0O0/- towards dowry as per the demands of respondent No.2 and his family members. Soon after the marriage, petitioner No.l found that respondent No.2 is addicted to several bad vices like drinking, smoking, playing cards, eating gutkhas etc., and it u,as informed that respondent No.2 was forced to marry petitioner No.l by his parents and used to come to the house in late nights in a drunken conditionr:ascd r.rsed to create nuisance.

¶27

¶28

¶29

After few months, petitioner No.^{1 went} to^{her parent'shouse} for delivery and she was blessed with a male child on²⁷ 'O5.2OO3. In the month of August 2O03, the^parents of^{petitionerNo.1. went to} respondent No. I house and requested him^and his^{parentsto take} back petitioner No. 1 to matrimonial house.^{Respondent No.2 and} his parents demanded additional dowry of^{Rs.2,00,O0O/-and} respondent No.2 left abroad and^parents of respondent^{No.2 refused} to give details of him. In May 2OO8 the^{parents of petitionerNo.1} again approached the parents of respondent^{No.2 and requested to} take petitioner No. 1 to their matrimonial house but^{they reiterated} their demand of Rs.2,OO,000/- additional dowry,^as the^parentsof petitioner No.1 assured, petitioner No.1 was^permitted to^{join the} company of respondent No.2 on 04.06.200A.

¶30

Respondent No.2 agajn started harassing^{petitionerNo.1 for} additional dowry of Rs.2,00,0O0/-, he is so^{irresponsible and never} taken care of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 continued^{his vices,} whenever petitioner No.l questioned to stop his.^{vices, he used to} beat and threaten with dire consequences^{and petitionerNo. 1 was} forced to leave the matrimonial house on^{1 1. I} L2O08^{due to} behavior of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 refused to^maintain the petitioners, as petitioner No. t has no mears to maintain herself and her child, hled M.C.No.74 of 2OO9.

¶31

Respondent No.2 herein filed counter denving all the allegations made by petitioner No. 1 against him. He stated that after marriage, petitioner No.l joined the matrimonial home and stayed with him only 6 months and during the 7rh month, petitioner No. I left to her parent's house. Respondent No.2 further stated that he never demanded any dowry at any point of time. With the intervention of elder and well wishers, he could bring back petitioner No.1 in the month of June 20OB and she again stayed for 5 months and left his company along with her child without any reason. At the instance of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 put up a separate family in a separate portion of his parents house even then petitioners left the matrimoniar house and fired o.p.No.26o/09 before the Family Court, Ranga Reddy for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending. petitioner No. 1 is a B.Sc. graduate and working in Dolphin High School and getting some salar;.. petitioner No.2 is studying 4th class.

¶32

Previously, respondent No.2 worked in HDFC Bank titl December 2008 and was drawn a salary of Rs.7,SOO per month. Now he was removed as he was suffering from ill. health and one kidney was removed and he could not get employment after his recovery. Respondent No.2 never refused or neglected petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

¶33

¶34

The learned Judge, Family^{Court Secunderabadafter verifying} the oral and documentary^{evidences before it,the claim of} maintenance to petitioner^{No. 1} is^{rejected'Considering the needs} and necessities of the child and^{so also considering the earning} capacity of respondent No.2,^{the above M.C., has allowed in part by} awarding a maintenarce^{of Rs.2,OOO/- per month to only petitioner} No.2 and respondent No.2^{wasdirectedto pay the sajd amount on} or before of 10e of every^month.

¶35

g. Ms. Sowmya, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty,^{learned counsel for the petitioners} would submit that the learned^{trial Court uide orderdated} O2.Og.2Ol1^passed in^{M.C.No.74of 2OO9has awardeda sum of} Rs.2,O0O/- per month^{towards maintenance only to petitioner No'2} without appreciating the fact that^{petitioner No.2 is stayingand} studying with his mother^{i.e., petitionerNo.1. Though, petitioner} No. 1 is not working anyrvhere and^{stayingat the mercy of her} parents, the Court below under the^{presumptionthat petitioner} No.l is a graduate and working in^{a Schoolhas dismissedthe claim} of petitioner No. 1. Aggrieved by the^{same, the present criminal} revision case is Iiled.

¶36

Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingfor respondent} No.l-State would submit that the court^{below after examiningthe}

material available on record and facts before it has rightly passed the order in M.C.No.74 of 2OO9, dated 02.O9.2O11. So far as the maintenance is concerned, petitioner No.1 is at liberty to hle the necessary application under Section I2T (ll Cr.p.C. before the trial Court, without hling such application, filing revision before this Court is not permissible. Hence seeks to dismiss the criminal revlslon case.

¶41

Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order in M.C.No.74 of 2OO9, dated 02.O9.2O11 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

¶42

Accordingly, this criminal revision case is disposed of. Granting liberty to the petitioners to agitate their cause before the Court below.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKS}IMI DEPUTY REGISIRAR //rRUE coPY// ,e /

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, SECTION 1 - The Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad 2. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) J 4 . Two CD CopiesOne CC to SRt. VENKATESWARLU SAN|SETTY Advocate [OPUC]

NJB

k\k

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/08/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1394 of 2013

¶54

rE Sr r E oA
a
9?.
lt N,tN 1$.1 ),Cf
i. t
,o
,k
D
'.\f ==-=:;-

¶55

CRL.R,C IS DISPOSED OFF

¶56

\N}
6 \nx-

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

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

Vaka Vasudeva Rao, Hyd., Vs K.Srinivasa Rao, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

J.Srinivas Vs J.Sridevi

Smt. Padma, Vs State of Telangana

Madipally Amruthamma Vs the Stateof Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others