Dismissed

K.Laxminarayana Gupta v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2023CRLRC/1591/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order of the Additional Family Court. The petitioner husband aggrieved by a finding that the maintenance claim was maintainable sought a stay. The High Court upheld the trial direction and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision failed and was dismissed. A stay of proceedings before the Family Court against 2nd and 3rd respondents was rejected.

K.Laxminarayana Gupta Vs the State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CAS E NO: 1591 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against the Judgment dated 31 ..8.2017 in M.P.No.710 of 2016 in M.C.No.27712015 on the file of the Additionat Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. Laxminarayena Gupta S/o. Late K. Chandrasekhar Gupta, previously r/o G-andhinagar, Hyderabad Forcibly became r/o H.No.1-49, Main Road Kodahgal. Mahabubnagar District

¶10

AND

¶11

...pETrroNER

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings. Hyderabad

¶13

2 Snit. K. Shailaja Wo. K. Laxminarayana Gupta, Housewife R/o 1-9-945 to 950, Flat No.312. 114719/A 2nd Block, Janapriya Abodes, New BakaraM Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶14

3 Kumari K. Ramya Sri D/o. K. Laxminarayana Gupta, employee, R/o 1-9-945 to 950 Flat No.312, 11-47l9lA,2nd Block, Janapriya Abodes New Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶15

4 Kumari K. Raga Sri, D/o. K. Laxminarayana Gupta, Aged 14 years, Student. R/o 1- 9-945 to 950 Flat No.312. 11-4719/A, 2nd Block, Janapriya Abodes New Bakaram. Musheerabad, Hyderabad

¶16

Note: As respondent No.4 is minor and under the control of the Respondent No. 2, the Natural Guardian

¶17

...RESPONDENTS the learned Judge, Additional Family Court Nampally, Hyderabad. lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in so far 2nd Respondent and 3rd1 Respondent herein (1st and 2nd Petilioners in MC NO. 277 of 2015) in M.C. No. 277t2015 on the file of the tearned Judge. Additional Family Court Nampally, Hyderabad, pending final disposal of the above criminal Revision

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. NARENDER RA",

¶20

Counsel for Respondent No. 1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HOIII)URABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURE;NDE;R qEUqU AL REVISIoN CASE No.159:t_p!]?r)ltl

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The petir ioner/husband rs aggrieved by the o^-der of the learned Farr:.il'^(lourt Judge in finding that the I4r,Linl.enance Case u,as mai rt.a-inable ald directing to dispose ol' tt e main case.

¶25

Briefly the case of the husbald is th at rhe Maintenanct:⁽ la5s 1i1.6 by the wife ald the childrr:n rvas not maintainabl: I ir-tce they were not entitled tc mai_rr.enance as they werrl e,: lding shares in the Financ ial Oorporation, Kodangal

¶26

Learned ir:rmily Court Judge deemed it ap:r.op:iate to give an cplto trrnity to the wife ald clLildre I to claim maintenance.. Whether the Maintenance (..as,: \/as maintainabir) . r aot would only be decided ater a.l,:lucing the evidence.^'I'1-r r grounds raised by the husban,l re1;arding non-main:air-ra^'tility can as well be agitatr'd itr^..he crossexaminaticn a: rd he cal adduce the evidence, sjrrc: they are based on fa,:1., . There is no infirmity in :he crr.ter of the

¶27

¶28

learned Family Court Judge in directing to continue the trial

¶29

in the Maintenance Case.

¶30

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and

¶31

dismissed.

¶32

Miscellaneous applications^pending, if any, shall^stand

¶33

closed

¶34

Sd/- I. NAGA LAXMI //TRUE COPY// DEPUEfl:GISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER '

¶35

To,

¶36

1 . The Additional Family Court, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶37

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri G. Narender Raj, Advocate(OPUC)

¶38

, 4.^{Twp CD Copies} MBC _,/ €a

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

D,'[ED: 1610612023

¶41

.</
/:
+1 ^E SlAf€
,/t :
l.'
I(:i:: '\ ] lllt ?[n
+
\ ,, I
,,t '
_.--;;---
ORDER

¶42

CRLR(;.No.1591 of 2018

¶43

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAl- REIVISION CASE

¶44

I
O3
UI ),t
Jd,
J--
---
I ,.:'-

K.Laxminarayana Gupta v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Laxminarayana Gupta v. the State of Telangana

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

The State of Telangana Vs Booruga Raju , Yohan Raju

Mohd. Imam, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Vasam Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

S. Madhu Sekhar , Vamsi Vs The State of Telangana

M. Rahmathullah or Babu Vs State of Telangana

K. Yasoda Vs The State of Telangana