Dismissed

Saroj Kumar Dhir, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/148/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order granting monthly maintenance to a wife and three minor children. The revision was accommodated due to a subsequent compromise and settlement involving the petitioner husband.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case No. 148 of 2010 was dismissed as there were no merits due to the settlement between parties.

Saroj Kumar Dhir, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I³²⁰⁸ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 148 OF 2010

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment daled 19h212O09 made in MC No.83 ol 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, for the Trial of JHCBBC-cum- Additional Family Court -cum- XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Saroj Kumar Dhir, S/o Goralal Dhir, Hotel Business No 33-7112, Officer's Colony, R.K.Puram, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ APPELLANTS,

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, lir Hyderabad.

¶14

Smt. Latika, Wo Saroj Kumar Dhir, Fl/o 33-7112, Officers'Colony, R.K.Puram, Secunderabad. Presently Rl/o Flat No.B-108, Express Apartments, A.C.Guards, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Shobitha, S/o Saroj Kumar Dhir, aged 17.years, Occ: Student, lnter ll Year

¶16

Ravit, S/o Saroj Kumar, aged 14 years, 9''.Class Student

¶17

Assem, S/o Saroj Kumar, aged 8 years, 3'o Class Student (the Respondents 3 to 5 are being minors, rep. by their natural guardian, i.e., resPondent No'2)'

¶18

..RES'.NDENTS

¶19

For the Petitioner : SRI K.SRINIVASA REODY, Advocate

¶20

¶21

Forthe RespondentNo.l : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THIi HO\OURAItLE SMT. JUSTTCE p.SREt,SUDHA

¶24

Crl. R.C. N o.148 of 2010

¶25

UDGMFN T

¶26

A lrert sal of prot:eedings dated 13.07 2022w.ou rl shor,r, that lea rrr,-:cl cou nsel for the petitioner on rcco rcl hirs been c.lcvirtctl a; t rt,Juclge of l{igh Court of Antllrra I,rtcl,sh ancl notice r,r,as is;trcrl to tlrr, petitioner witlr a dire<.tic,r_r to .rppear bcfort'tlrt, (ir1r1.1 ilr-, 0ZOg.2rrr, but he did not lr,rn up on that dalr ()l.e\ en today. pcrusccl the record.

¶27

This cr minal revision case arises a1;ainst t he order dated l9 12.2(09 in I\4.C.No.g3 of 2007 passetl by r,h: lt,arned Aclditional lv elropolitan Sessions |udge for the, Trial of JI{CBBC-cum,,Ac{clitional Family (lourt-r:rrm..XXIII

¶28

-1

¶29

Additionrrl Ch ef Judge, I{yderabad.

¶30

Resp1y111l^.nt Nos.2 to 5 herein, who are ..r.ifc. and children, fil,:rl M.C.No.83 of 2007 under Secticn l 5of Cr.P.C., aga irls t he petitioner_huslrand seeking nrai rrr er.r,rnce.

¶31

¶32

Respondent No.2 stated^{that her maffiage with the petititluer} was performed, on24Jl.2|1998^{and they are blessed with threc} children i.e., respondent^{Nos.3 to 5 herein. Respondent} No.2, herself examined^{as PW1 and got markedExs'P1to P9'} Petitioner himself examined^{as RW1 and one Bal Krishan} Verma, examined as RW2^{The trail Court after considering} the entire oral^{and documentary evidence and after hearing} both sides, directed^{the petitioner herein to pay an amount of}

¶33

Rs.4,500/- to respondent^{No.2 and Rs'2,500/-each to} respondent Nos.3 to^{5 towards their monthly maintenance} from the date of^{petition along with legal expenses of} Rs.2,500/-. Aggrieved^{by the said order,,the present revision}

¶34

¶35

is preferred by^the Petitioner.

¶36

¶37

The petitioner stated^{that the disputeswere settledin} view of the compromise^{betweenthe parties and petitioner-} husband paid Rs.12,00,000/-^{vide cheque bearing Nos'02973'} 029674, 029676^{and 029675,dated 15'01'2010'As the matter}

¶38

is setl-lccl^{atni ably betrvttn tht'parties'they heLvcdt'cidr:cl to}

¶39

rvithc.lr;rrV^{trll tlrc cases filcd agairrst each otht'r' t '': also filetl} copv of^{thc ()r'tlt'rclatctl19 122009 passed in M -N r'83 of} 2007 bv thi'^{h ial (lourt}

¶40

Ir-r vier ' 'rf^{the above circumstances' as tl '(l m'1tteris} scttlerl^{lret'n,t c'rr the} Paltics,^{this Court finds that []erc are no} mcrits irt^{thr: ct inritral rt'r'isiot-r and is liable to ['e rlil;missecl'}

¶41

('t. Itt tlrt: r'tsu1t,^{C rimirralRevision Casc is} ']is^lissr:cl

¶42

7 As a sr^{quel to, n.riscellaneouspetitions pentling'if any'}

¶43

sl'rall^{s ta rrcl . os€el.}

¶44

Sd/..I NAGA^LAKSHMI DE:'I.'TY REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// (I) S;=CTION OFFICER

¶45

-o ',. an" Additional I4etropolitan Sessions Judge'.for the Trial cl 'IHCBBC -cumAdditionat r.r,^{y cojill'r.:!.;[rreoAitt"#lChiefJudseat Hvderabad}

¶46

1. A;; idj"^{yi i lsr.inl"t' Reddv' Advocate [oPt ]cl} 3. Two^{ccs ro the puoric?%iecui6i,nigrr corit for the Stakrc,f Tr:langana at} Hvderabad^{(t)L T)}

a. Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212023

I i l"r[,i ?ffi

ORDER

CRLRC.No.148 ol 2t 1o

¶55

THE CRL.R.C. IS DIS MISSED. r\ (_'ti 20 t²²

Saroj Kumar Dhir, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Kumar Dhir, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

D. Mallesh, Vs D. Sukanya , Urmila, and Another

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, Vs Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

Syed Hasan Ali Abidi Vs Smt. Arjumand Sultana , Arjumand Fatima and Another

Shaik Abdul Mazid Vs M/S. Godavari Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and the State of Ap

The Special Deputy Collector La Cum Loc Vs Thokala Ashok

Akhil Ahmed, Vs Siddiqa Nikhat and Another