The High Court dismissed a criminal revision seeking to challenge a maintenance award of Rs. 4,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to two minors. Citing low costs of living, the bench refused to interfere and dismissed the petition.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; the impugned award of maintenance is affirmed.
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 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
I\4ONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 16'11 OF 2013
Criminal Revrsion Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 27-04-201 3 made in M.C-No.121 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judge Family Court Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
Between:
G.Rajendra Kumar, S/o. Late Sri G.Bala Swamy, R/o.CB-3, Swarna Lok Complex, Vijayawada, Presently R:/o. Flat No. 102, C.B.R. Residency, Opp Telephone Exchange, Gunadala, Vijayawada - 4, Krishna District-
PetitioneriRespondent AND
...Respondents/Petitioners
l.A NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP. NO: 2474OF 20131
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to grant stay of operation of the Award dated 27 -04-2013, in M.C.No.121 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judge Family Court Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Pending disposal of the above Revision Case.
l.A NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO: 2398 OF 2014) Between:
... Petitioners/Respondent Nos.'l to3
AND
...RespondenUPetitioner
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.Cpravingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,theHighCourt may be pleasedto vacate the inteflm order ofStay grantedearlieron 07-02-2014in CrI RC MP.No 247 4120 '1 3 in Crl.RC No.'1611/2013.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY(NOTBEING PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondents:V YADU KRIS,HNA SAINATH
Counsel for the Respondents:Sri VIZARATHALl,ASSISTANT PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEE. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1611 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Criminzrl Revision Case is liled bytl-re pctitionerherein aggrieved b-v the Arvard in M.C.No. 121 of 2009,dated 27.O4-2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, RangaReddyDistrict at L.B.Nagar (for short,"the trial Court").
l
the Petitrolrcr lLrrcltiler'bothlivt:<]happilr-,forabouttwo(02)monllrs ri'ccl krck,Lhcr arcb essedrvilh two children t c- ' Out olthcrt startedharasstng Liileron'pctltloner respotldct-ttNos 2:in<l 3' entingon her that respondctlt\ti' lotl ollc I)retcxL itll<1e noLher comm hegot mart rc<i s'ithrr:sptltlclct'tt No l onprcssllre of hisparents' Furthcrrcsl)orldcntNo lr'r'a s sul)jectod to cruelty both physicallyand his rrLotherfor additional dowry' On menlallYbv tht: pclitionerand rcr;pondentNo' 1me rcilessl! and 15.06.2008.thc pctitioncrbca t fromIt is housc thro\'nher oll l
I
Nos.2 and 3 on or- bcfor,. -,r, of every month. Aggncvecl l), Lhe same. lh(,pres,.nt r.rimirral rcvisi,,rr ,-asc is filed.
8' o, behzrlf of trre prosecution, the trial court examined pw 1 and PW2 and rnarkcd Exs p1 to pl3. On behalf of the defense, RWI was examined artri r-ro documents *,ere marked. On behalf of Court rr,itness CW 1 was examinecl and Ex.X 1 , X2 and, X3 were marked. After apprcciatior of the orar and documentary evidence ava,abre on record the trial court granted maintenance of Rs.4,OOO/_ per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/_ per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
t
.1
pa)'ment of arre:.rrs cillclllatc(l ilt Lhc san)c ratc \'ithin six s.ceks lrom today.'l'ill datc, nothinq is ai,iriLrble on recorcl to sho\a,that thc order passed tr-y this CourL is i onrplicci * ith.
1 1. Accordingly, thc Cr irninerl Iicvision Czrse is dismissed
Misce llaneous Petitions, pr:nding il ar-ry, shall stand closed
Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT
DATED:0410912023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1611 of 2013
i)
-..<br>2 B [';{ 2$13
\ -;,
'..:- --' f,t . r
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DlSMISSED
J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 to the wife and Rs. 2,000 to the children.
Whether the interim stay granted earlier should be recalled or continued.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bani SinghExplained¶40
Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
4 provisions across 3 enactments
G.Rajendra Kumar
M.Durga Malleshwari
G.Revanth
G.Shashidhar
The State of Andhra Pradesh
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
