Dismissed

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023CRLRC/1626/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a family court order granted maintenance to minor children. The Court held that interfering with the trial court's measured but meagre award was not permissible.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to work out remedies available under law.

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad Vs the State… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION^C ASE^{No: '1626OF 2011}

¶8

criminal Revision case^{filed under section397 and 401 of cr.PC against} the order dated^{14.07-2011in M C.No 90 0f 2010 0n the file of the court of the} Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:----'-i.Frrrod Kumar, s/o Komuraiah (T.Kornal) Head Draughtsman/Surveyor, O*ice of Directorate^{-of Mine. anil Safety, Southern Zone,Gruhakalpa} Comprex, opp Gandhi^{Bhavan, Nampally,rro.tro,l.""*itioner/Respondent}

¶10

AN D 1 The State of AP., Rep^{by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P- , H.yderabad} 2 T.Pr;tii Olo. f.pral"oa^{Kumar, age 26 years'R/oQr'No 1212l3, Railway} Quarters, Chilakalaguda,^{Secunderabad- 25}

¶11

a ip?iri.bl". T Praniod^{(rmar,age: 20 years,R/oQr No. 1212l3, Railway} Quariers, Chilakalaguda.^{Secunderabad- 25}

¶12

tn".io,iO""t.2^{anJ g are declaredas majorsdischargrn^g} Pylfil^natural,.- httnLi sri o^{perCyuy orderof the High'Court dated06 10 2023passed tn} lA No 1/2021 in .RLRC^{No' 1626/2011} )

¶13

"'Respondents/Petitioners

¶14

t.A. O:1 OF 201,I(CRLRCMP.^{NO:2403 oF 201'l}

¶15

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the peiition,the High Court may be^ pleasedto} Stay the operation^{of the order dated14-07-20'11 in M C No. 90 of 2010 on the} file of the Court of^{the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad' pending disposal of} the criminal revision^case.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI A PRABHAKARRAO}

¶17

CounselfortheRespondentNo.{:THEASSISTANTPUBLICPROSECUTOR

¶18

Counsel for the^{Respondents2 & 3 : Smt' B'KAVITHA YADAV}

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

fl ''/

. t\

/('

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E. V. VENUGOPAL}

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1626 oF^2O11

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order in M.C.No.90 of²⁰ 10, dated 14.07.2011^{passed by the learned} Judge, Family Court,^{Secunderabad (for} short^{"the trial Court").}

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yizarath Ali, learned Assistar"rt^Public Prosecutor appearing for^the respondent-State.^{Perused the record}

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage ol the petitioner herein with D. Solomon (mother of re.spondent Nos.2 and 3) was solemnized on 20.1O.1993 as per Christian rites ald customs, out of their wedlock two female children born i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 (unofficial respondents) herein, the mother of unofficial respondents is working in Railways and the petitioner is working in Survey Department after the marriage the petitioner used to suspect the character of Smt. D. Solomon and used to harass her for additional dowry and unofficial respondents grandmother was forced to sell a house for Rs. 1 .5 lakhs which was given to the petitioner in the year 2OO7 to fulfitl his demand, respondent No.2 1S studying Intermediate in Sri

¶29

¶30

Chaitanya Junior^{College and also preparingforMedical} Entrance Test, respondent^{No.3 is studying6tl' class in Bashyam} school, unoflicial respondents^{mother filed a petition for divorce} which is pending^{before that Court, respondent No'2 has to pay} Rs. 1 lakh per annum for^{her college and hostel fee and} respondent No.2 has to^{pay Rs. 16,000/- per annum towards} tuition fee, apart from that^{they need money for other necessities.} Hence the M.C.No.9O^{of 2010 is filed.}

¶31

The petitioner filed counter^{denying the material allegations} made in the M.C., and^{further stated that the petitioner is forced} to stay away from^{unofficialrespondents mother as she is} arrogant and quarrelsome^{nature, she used to quarrel with the} petitioner for petty^{reasons, the marriage of the unofficial} respondents mother^{and the petitionerwas solemnized as per} Hindu customs and^{againsolemnizedat churchthe petitioneris} originally Hindu by^{religion which was known unoffrcial} respondents mother,^{he never insisted her toconvertinto} Hinduism, he never^{demanded any additional dowry, the} petitioner is paying the tuition^{fee and hostel fee of his children,} he has to maintain^{his old aged parents dependantsister and} their children, unofficial^{respondentsmother is working in}

¶32

¶33

Railways and drawing handsome^{salaryand able to maintainthe} unofficial respondents

¶34

The learned trial Court after^{examiningthe oral and} documentary evidences and facts^{before it has partly allor'l'ed the} M.C., directing the petitioner to^{pay Rs.6,OOO/-per monthto} respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000/-^{per month to respondentNo'3} towards their maintenarlce on or^{beforeloth of every month from} the date of petition. In case^of default,^{the unofhcialrespondents} are at liberty to execute the order^{by due process oflaw.} Aggrieved by the same, the^present criminal^{revisioncase is filed.}

¶35

6 . Learned counsel for the petitioner^{would submit that} 1n unofficial respondents mother is^working Railways and drawing handsome salary and able^{to maintain the unofficial} respondents. Hence seeks to allow the^{criminal petition by} setting aside the order in M.C.No.9O of 2010, dated^{14.07.20 11}

¶36

¶37

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing^for respondent-State .would submit that the Court below^after I examining the evidences, upon perusing the material available^on record and facts before it, has passed the order in^{M.C.No.9O of} 2OlO, dated 14.07.2011 granting meagre amount^as maintenance. Challenging such a meagre amount^{at this stageis}

¶38

¶39

not permissible. Hence seeks^{to dismissthe crirninal revision}

¶40

case

¶41

Upon careful consideration of the oral and^documentar5r evidences on^{record, this Court is of thb view that the} maintenance^{awarded by the trial Court is not only appropriate} but also meagre.^{Challengingsuch ameagre amount of} maintenance^{is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living} standards of^{the people has beenescalatedinmanyfolds.} Hence, this Court^{doesnot find any reasontrl interfere with the} well reasoned order^{passedby the triat Court. Therefore, the} present criminal revision case is^{devoid of meritsand the same is} liable to be dismissed.

¶42

g. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Granting liberty to the petitioner to^{work out the remedies as} available under law.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if^any ,^{shall standclosed.} Sd/. K.SAILESHI DEPUfi^REGISTRAR /TTRUE^COPY// sEcTlo OFFIC ER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Judge, Family^{Court, Secunderabad}

¶46

One CC to SRl.^{A PRABHAKARRAOAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶47

One CC to SMT^{B KAVITA YADAV Advocate [OPUC]}

¶48

¶49

4'TwoCCstoPUBL|CPRoSECUTOR,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' Hyderabad [OUT]

¶50

Two CD CoPies R R/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611012023

/| !.' ,.i
i/()
:l
0I tqnr iozl ,, l]
'.. )'
:-_-, .i-!--r.ri.s "!-i iii:. ':li:r

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLRC.No.1626 of 2011

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶59

"t['{r1

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad v. the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

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

Vathalur Sreedhara Reddy Vs Mrs.Bharathi Reddy and 2 Others

Dayakar Kishan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Myadari Rajesham, Karimnagar District Vs Myadari Rajavva, Karimnagar District and Anr, Rep.,by Pp.

Peruri Santhosh, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District Vs the State of A.P. Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Mohammed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

G.Anjaneyulu Vs Smt.B.Ganga Bhavani and the State of A.P.