Dismissed

Syed Abdul Aleem v. Fathima Unnisa Begum

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLRC/1720/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Family Court's order granting Rs.7,000/month maintenance to a child. The Court found no infirmity in the lower court's finding that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was employed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 1720 of 2018 was dismissed upholding the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the child.

Syed Abdul Aleem Vs Fathima Unnisa Begum — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OFJULY

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

Criminal Revision Case No. 1720 of2018

¶7

CrLSa-

¶8

Criminal revisionvfiled under Sections 397 & 407 Cr.p.C. against the order dated 72.05.2018 passed in M.C.No.69 ol 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Syed Abdul Aleem, S/o. Syed Abdul Manjeed, aged abour 30 years, R/o. 9_3_ 22, Company Bagh, Langer House, Golconda, Hylerabad.

¶11

...Petitioner.

¶12

AND

¶13

Fathima Unnisa Begum , W / o. Syed Abdul Aleem, aged abou t 30 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o. H.No. I I -4-229, Chilkalguda,Sccu n.lera bai.

¶14

Hajecra Begum, D/o. Syed Abdul Aleem, AseJ minor. Reo. bv her mother Fatima Unnisa Begum (l't Respondeit), R/o. A.Ni.U'_q_ZZg, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad

¶15

The. State of Te_langana, f? Uy its public prosecutor, High Court of JudicatuJg^{at Hyderabad,} For the State of Telangana and"the.state of Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

...Respondents/ Complainant.

¶17

(Lower Court number year-(M.C.No. year) changed as per Court order dated 20.07 .201 8 v id e l. A. N o.2/ ZO r s in Cr I. (. c. No. r z Zd 1 Zorcj

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

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 be pleased to stay the order dt. 12.s.2018 passed in M.C.No.69 of 2016 onrhe file of the Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad.

¶20

(M.C.No, year changed as per Court order dated 20.07.2018 vide IA.No.2/2018 in Crl.R.C.No.1720l 2018)

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: None appears. Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: The Public Prosecutor.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CA^{SE No.1720oF 2018}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

1 . The rusbancl is^I he revision^{petitionerwho is} questioning, the grant^{o1- mainlenance to the childby} order datt:c ).2.O5.2O18^{in M.C.No.69 of 2016 passed by} thc Famil1 .)ourt.Iudge^{at Secunderabad.}

¶26

ln an appli<:ation^{t,-rarde by the r"'i[e and child, the} Iearned F-zLr ril,r' Cotrrt^{,lutlge examined the n'ife as P'W' 1,} husband zLs R.W. i attrl^{rnarkedExs.P. 1 to I)'9. Learned} Family Cou rt Judge^for,Lnd that^{the wife was not entitled} to claim mz.intenancc'^{sirtcc she was working. However,} granted maintenance ol'Rs.7,000/-^{to the child.}

¶27

lt is not brought to the^{notice of this Court whether} the maintenance o[ Rs.{.000/- directed^{by this Courtto} be paid b,v c rder 06.O7^.2OI 8^{is paid or not. However, as} scen from thc finclings^{of the learnedFamily Court Judge,} I do not find anv infirrnitv u,ith the grant of maintenance to the child.

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed upholding the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the child. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶30

Sdl- CH. VENKATESWARLU

DEPUTY REGISTRAR qp

//TRUECOPY/ /

SECTION OFFICER

To,

7 The Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. (with records) 2 One CC to Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] .1 One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad loPUCl 4 Two CD Copies. ]CK

PAq

HIGFI COURI

DATED:24/O7 /)(D7

1 T E o
\e
,1/ o
.
<br>I s C,.'
(r $ $ stt .fa,
\ I
( l
I T) tl ?

¶40

ORDER

¶41

CRLRC.No I720 of 20ifl

¶42

a%\k .,g

¶43

Disrnissing the Crirninal iie.vision Castt

Syed Abdul Aleem v. Fathima Unnisa Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Abdul Aleem v. Fathima Unnisa Begum

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

Veeru Singh, Mahgalhat, Hyderabad and Another Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Anr.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Budige Lingaiah

Chakali Srinivas, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

M.Satyanarayana Vs v.Shiva Rama Raju

G.Vnkatesh Vs the State of A.P.

M.Yadaiah and 2 Others, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.