In this Criminal Revision, the Telangana High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband against the Domestic Violence Act maintenance award granted to his wife and children, citing escalation in living costs and lack of merits.
The criminal revision petition was dismissed and allowed to stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1453 OF 2017
Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe Judgment in Crl Appeal No.194 of 2015 on the file of the ll AdditionalSessionsJudge, Nalgondaat Suryapet dated 30.12.20'16preferred against the orderin D.V.C.No.18of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodaddated27.11.2015.
Between:
Mahankali Baskar S/o Krishna Murthy
Petitioner/1'tAppellant/1'tRespondent r
AND
.. Respondents/Appellants 2 to s/Respondents 2 to 5
(Respondents 3 to 6 are not necessary parties to thispetition)
CrIRC MP No.2343 of 2017
Petition under Section 482 of CrPC 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 proceeding in pursuance of the order passed in DVC No. 18 of 2012, dated 27 .'11 .2O15 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodad and the confirming order in Criminal Appeal passed by the ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet in Crl.A.No.'194 of 2015, dated 30.12.2016, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. K.V.Raghuveer, Advocate(Not Present)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 6 : None appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1453 oF 20L7
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 4Ol Cr.P.C against the order in Crl.A.No.l94 of 2O15, dated 30.12.2016 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge Nalgonda at Suryapet (for short 'the appellate Court') by confirming the order in DVC No. 18 of 2012, dated 27.ll.2ols passed by the leamed Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad (for short 'the trial Court).
t (1996) 4 Supreme Cou( Cases 720
2
Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits.
learned appellate Court.
J
I I I i
7 . Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the maintenance granted to respondent No.2 and her children is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre anount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the
4
people have escalated in marry folds. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Revision as the same is devoid of merits.
8 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
\
SD/- M.MANJULA DEPUTYREGISTRA(;/
//TRUE COPY// V/
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 . The ll Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet
\"--
kvon I'lS
HIGH COURT
DATED:07 .12.2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1453 of 2017
1HE S14 r4r
(o
i 15 n/ln nzt )
t *
sparc :/'
DISMISSING THE CRL.RC
oQ
-?.o
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the maintenance order passed by the trial court and appellate court given the escalated cost of living.
Whether the lack of representation by the petitioner justifies the dismissal of the criminal revision proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶31
Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1996) 4 SCC 720Relied on¶32
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahankali Baskar S/o Krishna Murthy
The State of Telangana
Mahankali Madhavi @ Palavarapu Madhavi
Mahankali Hemalatha
Mahankali Krishna Murthy
Mahankali Raju
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
