This High Court criminal revision was dismissed. The Court noted the petition was filed from 2017 proceedings without petitioner representation after significant delay. Relying on Bani Singh, the Court chose to examine merits rather than dismiss on procedural grounds.
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.
[329e ]
f
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIM INAL REVISION CASE NO: 1536 OF 2017
Revision filed Under Sections 397 and 401 of CrpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the criminal Revision case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order Dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Warangal in tril.C.No.1 of 2016.
Between:
Gottam prathap, S/o.Late. Uppalaiah, Aged 30 yrs, Occ Labour, R:/o.H.No.2-30, Kesamudram Village and lvlandal, Warangal Districi.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
I.A NO :1OF 2O17lCRLRCMP. NO:248 3 0F 20171
Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavjt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order Dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court, warangal in M.c. No. 1 of 2016 pending disposal of the criminal Revision case in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. E VENKAT REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent NO.1 : SRI VIZARATH ALl,
ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Counsel for the Respondent NO.2 & 3: None appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
\
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1536 OF 2Ol7
ORDER:
This Criminal Rcvision Case is filed aggrieved b_rr the order in M.C.No. I of 2016, datecl 09.02.2017 passed by tl.re learned Judge, Family Court, Warangal
I
-)
,
belolr, directed the petitionerto pay as sum of Rs.5,00O/per rnonth towarcls litigation expenses.Respondent No.2 shall open S.B. Account in a banl<of herchoice for l-rer and respondentNo 3 ar-rd. ir-rtimate the detailsto the petitioner enabling him to paythe same e:ery month on orbeforeSrh of everJr succeedingmonth through online. Aggrievedby rvhich, the petitioner herein filed l lle presenl cl'tlnilral revisioncasc.
Miscellerneous Petitionspending if any,sha1l stand closed'
Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPU'/ //TRUE COPY// S.ETGISTRAR (E SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Judge Family Court at Warangal_ 2 Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) J One CC to SRt E.VENKAT REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 4 Two CD Copies ADK \X
"
HIGH COURT
DATED :0210812023
ORDER
i
1i'$
I 'j
t
CRLRC.No.1536 of 2O17
DISMISSING THE CRLRC
c<br>
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order or proceed on merits given the delay and lack of petitioner representation.
Whether the petitioner's grievances against the maintenance order warrant setting aside the learned Judge's judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶3
Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gottam Prathap
State of Telangana
Smt. Gottam Swapna
Gottam Tanuj Teja
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
