Dismissed

Smt.v.Padmavathi v. v.Sundar Raja

Telangana HC19 Jun 2023CRLRC/1486/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment dismissed three criminal revision petitions. The High Court held that since an earlier order granted general maintenance but no specific direction for school fees or other specific expenses, the Family Court correctly dismissed these subsequent applications failing to find fault in its orders.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Pleadings Nos. 1415, 1420 and 1486 of 2018 were dismissed.

Smt.v.Padmavathi Vs v.Sundar Raja — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 1415J42O3trd 1486 OF 2018

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 14'15 OF 2018

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated 05-01-2018 in Crl.MP.No.666 of 2017 in MC.No.210/2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for The Trail of JHCBBCCum-Additional Family Court-Cum-lX Additional Metropolitan Session Judge Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

1- Smt. V. Padmavathi, Wo. V. Dundar Raja, RJo Plot No. 546, First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶11

Master Anirudh, S/o. V. Sundar Raja, R/o Plot No. 546, First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad. Being Minor Rep. by Natural Guardian by Mother.

¶12

Master Avinash, S/o. V. Sundar Raja, Aged. 13 Years, R/o Plot No. 546, First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad. ( Petitioners Nos.2 & 3 are Minor Rep. by Natural Guardian by Mother i.e., Petitioner No.'l)

¶13

...Petitioners

¶14

AND

¶15

V. Sundar Raja, S/o. V. Prakasam, Aged.^{49 years,} R/o Plot No.^546,Ground Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad- 500 096.

¶16

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor,^High Court^{at Hyderabad for} the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra^Pradesh.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

CRIMINAL REVISI Ol | (;ASE NO: 1420 OF 2018

¶19

Revision file'd rnder Section 3g7 and 401 of criminal prcr;edlre code against the order dated 0{i-,- l-2018 in crl N4p.No.916 of 2o17 in MC.No. 10t2o1s on the fite of the Court of the lr lcl tional lvletropolitan Sessions Jud11e for Tl.e Trail of JHCBBC_ cum-Additional F:rr il,, court-cum-lX Additional Metropol t€ 1 Session Judge Hyderabad.

¶20

Between

¶21

1 Smt. V. Padrr:,rathi, W/o. V Dundar Raja, R/o plct No. 546. F:irst Floor, Road No.9, Filn N,acl rr, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶22

2 Master Anirucil- []/o V. Sundar Ra1a, Aged. 17 Yertrs, Fl/o Plot No. 546, First Floor, Road Nr.9, [:jlm Nagar, Ju6lee Fills, Hyderabad. Br-,ing l\rlinor Rep. by

¶23

Natural GuarCtr n :y Mother

¶24

J Master A,rinasr [i/o. V Sundar Raja, Aged. 13 ye:rrs. F.kr plot No. 546, First Floor, Road l,l(),1. Film Nagar, Jubte-e Hitis, Hyderabad. g"n,r Vinoii p"iiii;;;; Nos 2 & I are I rirrior Repiby Naturar Guaidi6n oy rvrotnlr i ,;., pitiii,inei lio.ij^"

¶25

...Petitioners

¶26

AND

¶27

V. Sundar R9ia, S,9 V.^prakasam, Aged. 49 years, Fi/o plct i.Jo. i46, Ground Floor, Road No. ), Film Nagar, Jublee"Hills, Hyderabad- 500 0r)6.

¶28

The^state of^{-el .rngana,,} Rep by pubric prosecutor, tligh ccurt a:Hyderabad for the State of Tel; n-<1ana and the State of Andhra prade,sF.

¶29

.. Respondents

¶30

cRt INAL REV ISION ::ASE NO: 1486 0F 2018

¶31

Revision filed u rd:r Seclion 397 and 40j of criminrrl pro,;e,Jurt: code against the order dated 05-11 2018 rn crt.Mp.No.855 of 2017 in trlc.No 2.ot2o1s on the fite of the court of the /\dr itional Metropolitan sessions Judge for T re Trrril of JHCBBC_ Cum-Additional Fami ,l Court-Cr-rm-lX Additional Metropolitrrn S,.ssion Judge Hyderabad.

¶32

Between:

¶33

1 SmL V. Padmav rtlri, Wo. V. Dundar Raja, R/o plot No. 5,t6 First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar Jublee Hills, Hyderabad.

¶34

Nraster Anirudh, S/o. V. Sundar Raja, R/o Plot No- 546, First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad. Being Minor Rep. by Natural Guardian by Mother.

¶35

Ir/aster Avinash, S/o. V. Sundar Raja, Aged. 13 Years, R/o Plot No. 546, First Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad. ( Petitioners Nos.2 & 3 are Minior Rep. by Natural Guardian by Mother i.e., Petitioner No.1)

¶36

...Petitioners

¶37

AND

¶38

V. Sundar Raja, S/o. V. Prakasam, Aged.49 years, R/o Plot No. 546, Ground Floor, Road No.9, Film Nagar, Jublee Hills, Hyderabad- 500 096.

¶39

The State of Telangana,, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶40

...Respondents

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioners (in all Appeals):SRl. K B RAMANNA DORA

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Public Prosecutor (TG)

¶43

Counsel for the Respondentl : (in all Appeals) Not appeared.

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶45

It t)'trr,r,r sr{l .tus'tICu K. sURtiNDtiR CI{t i,t IN,\ 1. tUrVtsIoN CASI Nos. l4l5 l{20 ancl 1486 of20lil

¶46

CON1NION.)]II)EII :

¶47

l. ('r'inr'- rl llevisiorr (asc ).Io.t.ll-5 of 20lli is f Jt:d aggricred by thc order o'the Fan'ril1, ('ourt Judgc in relusinp o direct the husb:rnrl ttr riry Ils. l ,01.500'- to\,ards coacIing fi; lor (''AT exanrinirtiorL arrd III- lttrrntlation 1cc.^'lht saic Draver \vas dismissed ;i< o ordcrs in^{('rl.N,l.P.No.(166} of 2r)ll t '1.('.No.210 ol'20 I 5

¶48

Clririin:l I(cvision^('usc No. t420 of 2018 is ji,:d ,:lainring recoverv o1' clrool l'ee lor thc cliildren with rut g ving spccific details, ort r:lirsaI by thc Family Co,r11 Ju:lgc. when Crl.M.P.Nc, !) 6 ol'2017 rvas Illecl in M.C.No.210 of 1t0t5.

¶49

Crinrin Ll l{cvision Casc No.l486 ol'2018 is lil,:c agrrinst the orders ol'the ) a nily Court .luclgc in dismissing the ap rlicat on fietd vide Crl.M.P.''1,r.855 of 20 l7 in M.C.No.210 of 20i-5 ref-rsing to direct tlrc Llr;band to pay I{s.2,89,000/- torvirrds t-ansp,)rtatron, clothes, nutrit^,:n, nredical and cost of the petition, ltrr the children

¶50

¶51

Atl the three petitions were dismissed by rvay of separate orders on 05.0t.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present fevrslons

¶52

Briefly, the background of the case is that the husband, aggrieved by award of maintenance to the wife and children, filed Crl.R.C.No. I800 of 2016. In the said revision, this Court, by order dated 27.01.2017, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.5,0001 each to the wife and two children, in total Rs. 15,000/-.

¶53

On the applications being filed by the wife and children, the learned Famity Court Judge found that this Court in Crl.R.C.No.l800 of 2016, did not grant any specific relief regarding payment of school fee or any other expenses apart from Rs.5,000/- to each of them. In the said circumstances, when this Court found that the husband was only at liberty to meet the educational expenses and there was no specific direction to^pay the additional expenses, the petitions have to fail.

¶54

,1"

¶55

f hc it: rrrred counscl appcarinq fbr peti[i.rner.; u nLrl:l subnrit that the l;ant Ir. Court .ludgc ccntrnittecl an etr.or ir. uot granting lcliefs as sor-L lh: fbr

¶56

U. The rci sr,ning given try thc learned Fanrily Ciour.r.lLrdge that there are n() s :etif-rc drrcctio,s by. this Court in llrt.R.C.No.lg00 of 2016 lbr pay 'Ir(r1t of educational expcnses, carrnot be firu ncl fhult with. Tlrt: lonsequent disutissal of applicatior s seeking educational er ll()nses also cannot bc, lbund f-ault ,vith.

¶57

Accordr rg ly, the criminal r.evisions l-ail and arer litimissed.

¶58

Pending niscellaneous applications, il anv, shall stand

\ \

closed.

I.. SIlINIVAS DEI.'UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( tL) SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To, 1. The Additional^{'ul,:tropolitan sessions Judgefor Tre Tr:ril of JHCBBC-Cum-} AdditionalFanill,Court.Cum-lXAdditionalMelropolilarsiessionJudge Hvderabad.^{('/Vi h Recordsif any)}

¶64

,. d;"ceb sii^{x e RAvnNINAboRA Advocate[ot'UC]}

¶65

3- Two CCs^{to IrLt rlir; Prosecutor,HighCourt of Telanglrna' [CtL T]}

¶66

Two CD^CoPies

Jsk "\

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:19/06/2023

COMMON JUDGMEN

cRLRG.Nos.1415, l4i r0 and^'1486 0f 2018

¶74

-1"?-"
,.'' . ;ta/.
a.
( '(
9
t)
(,
(
'J ? I lilt if8
i,
,, 7
<br>I ,,/

¶75

DISMISSING ALL THI.^(;IVIL REVISION PETITIONS

¶76

c :i<br>

Smt.v.Padmavathi v. v.Sundar Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.v.Padmavathi v. v.Sundar Raja

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

S. Madhu Sekhar , Vamsi Vs The State of Telangana

M. Rahmathullah or Babu Vs State of Telangana

K. Yasoda Vs The State of Telangana

Kamlesh Jambula Jothi , Kamaleshwar Jambavan, Vs J. Priyanka

Rajyalakshmi Vs Krc Murthy

Sherpally Venkateswarlu Vs State of Telangana