High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside a Family Court order refusing maintenance to the wife. The Court upheld the lower court's finding based on settlement and lack of proof of neglect.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed and pending miscellaneous applications 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.
[3251 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMI NAL R tsr N CAS E NO: 1475 0F 2018
Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of_Cr.p.C.,1973, aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.20't8 passed in n,Ic No.z) & zolz on the fite of the court of the Judge Family Court ai Khammam, fnamm# District.
Between:
Both are R/o.H.No.4-g-23 prakash Nagar Khammam.
2nd Petitioner is not necessary party.
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENT
IA NO: I OF 2018
Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, it" Higt' court mayG'pL"."i t" ?:y^jn:l1t:n"nceby.suspend the oider passedin UC No.ZZ'otZbrZ Oateo ru.u4.zutu passed by t[e Judge Family Court at Khammam, Khammam District.,pending disposal of the CrLR.C.
Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI. A JAGAN
Counsel for the Res pondent No.1: None Appeared
Counsel for the Res pondent No.2: pUBLIC PROSECTJTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
1
t I
I t
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1475 OF 2018
O RDE R:
The petitioners are questioning the order dated 10.04.2018 in M.C.No.22 of 2017 passed by the learned Family Court Judge refusing to grant maintenance to the wife.
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 - State. Perused the record.
No.11 of thejudgment which reads as follows;
The respondent himself filed chief ffidavit on 08.01.2018. Thereafter, the respondent appeared before the Court for cross-examination, but the petitioner and her Caunsel did not appear before the Court to crossexamine the respondent. On that the evidence of respondent was closed on 13.1L2017, the I't petitioner fileda memo before the Court at the intervention of caste elders, the disputes were settled and requested the Court to dismiss the petitioner. After fi.ling the petitioner, neither the petitioner nor the respondent appeared before the Court and in spite of appearance made by the
respc,nde t, the petitioner did not chcose to crossexamir,t: i,n. That itself shows that the petitio,ryt ltas no interest ,t contest llte ntatter. As per the et'il<,nct' ctn recor d, t, e petitioner .failed to prove that the rt s[.'on,lent totallv rt{uged and negl.ected to maintatn the petitiouet' ond petit ,'trter failed to prove that she has no <:up,tcity to main,tain herself. In the ubsence of the so,ne, *tel e i.; no groun(1' t ) grant maintenance to the pehtionet'. [{ence, therc are no nterits in the petition.
looking into tht conduct of the parties before the Fa.rriJy(lourt, the learncdjurllle fr und that infact there was no proof to sul:,ge:it that the wile rvas rre:gler ted or refused to be maintained lly the trusband. I do not f,rnd any inf rnrity in the finding of leamed Fa.rnil1, llourl Judge in refusing to llrirn the maintenance with the present facts c,f the case.
Miscr:llar ec,us applications pending, if any shatl slanrl closed.
Sd,I- B. SATYAVATHI DI:PUTY REGISTRAR
\
//TRUE COPY//
To,
SECllON OFFICER
HIGH COURI
DATED: 0410','12023
ORDER
/
,::() .i
" 3 A\lE ?t8
t,, -.
€
'i
:l
CRLRC.No.14rS ot 2018
DISMISSING T{E CRL.RC
t<br>2;,Ds
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition against the Family Court's order refusing to grant maintenance.
Whether the settlement reached between parties and the wife's conduct negate the need for maintenance relief.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Palkurthi Jyoth Krishna & Palkurthi Manisha
State of Telangana
Justice K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
