Dismissed

Smt. B.Sandhya, Moosapet, R.R.Dt., and Anr., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Telangana HC1 Sept 2023CRLRC/179/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed criminal revision petition challenging Family Court order awarding Rs.3,000 monthly maintenance for wife and minor son against husband's claim of Rs.15,000, holding no grounds for enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No.179 of 2014 dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Smt. B.Sandhya, Moosapet, R.R.Dt., and Anr., Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASENO i^{179 0F 2014}

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Under^{Sections397& 401 of Cr.P.C against the} Order made in M.C.No.149 of^{2009 dated 09.07.2012on the file of the Court of}

¶7

the Judge, Family Court, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt. B.Sandhya, Wo. Srinivas^{Rao,Occ Household,}

¶10

Master Mithul-Sai, S/o. B.Srinivas^{Rao,(aged 2 years and 7 months, minor} (reoresented bv mother quardian and next friend, petitioner No. 1) tloth Temporaiily residing at^{H.No.12-7-1341386,FlatNo. 301, Sri Sai Nivas,} AnjaneyaNagar'Moosapet'RR'District ...pE,roNERS/pETrroNERs

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of AP., Rept. by^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt Buildings'} Hyderabad.

¶13

Blsrinivas Rao. S/o. Mohan^{Rao,Occ Business, R/at.(1} )^{Flat No. 201,Gold} Stone Plaza, Near Vyjanthi^{Theater, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam,} R.R.District, OR⁽²⁾ Hbuse^{No. 4-1-9215, Street No. '1, Bhavani Nagar,} Nacharam' R RDistrict'

¶14

...RES'.NDENT'/RE.'.NDENT'

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl.^{P.RAVI SHANKER}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: M/S VIZARATHALl,}

¶17

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶20

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.179 OF 2014

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners herein aggrieved by the order dated O9.O7.2O12 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Rectdy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in M.C.No. 149 of 2009 in granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to both the petitioner AS against the claim of Rs.15,000/-.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Proser:utor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the record

¶24

The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage of the petitioner No. t herein with respo:edent No.2 herein was performed on 02.02.2006. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards cash and Rs.2,OO,OOO/- towards furniture, kitchen items and other household electronic gadgets, apart from Gold jewellery worth of Rs.4,OO,OOO/- and Rs.5,OO,OOO/- towards marriage expenses to respondent No.2. .Thereafter, petitionr:r No.1 joined the company of respondent No.2. From the beginning, respondent No.2 and

¶25

¶26

his mother^{were very crueltowardspetitionerNo' 1 and started} harassing^{both mentallyand physically for additionaldowry'}

¶27

At the^{time of marriage, respondent No'2 worked as} Manager, Home^{Loans Department, HDFCBank'he resigned the} job in April, 20O6^{i.e', barelyafter two months of marriage and} wanted to start^{business' After doing business for some time'} respondent^{No.2 joined INGVysyaBank and soon left the job and} once again^{ventured into business' During their wedlock'} petitioner No.1^{blessed with a baby boy i'e'' petitioner No'2' After} thebirthofchild,therewasnochangein.thebehaviorof respondent^{No'2' However, petitionerNo' 1 unable to bear the} torture and^{itl treatment and harassment made by respondent} No.2, she tried^{to commit suicide' Thereafter' due to intervention} of elders^{reconciliationwas done and thereafter she again joined} with resPondent^No'2'

¶28

5.DuetothecontinuousharassmentofrespondentNo.2, petitioner^{No.1 lodged a complaintbefore the Police by leaving} respondent^{No.2. On the said complaint'Police Nacharam'} registered a^{case in Crime No'98of 2009 under Section 498-A of} IPC and Section^{4 and 5 of D'P' Act' RespondentNo'1 neglected} to maintain^{petitionerNos' 1 and 2'as petitionerNo-' 1 is a}

E *"'

I \

household lady and has no means to rrLaintain herself and her child filed M.C.No.I49 of 2009 seeking fo-: maintenance

¶33

The learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad after examining the evidences and facts before it has partly allou,ed the M.C. by granting a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and a sum of Rs. 1,OOO/to petitioner No.2 towards maintenance and respondent No.2 was directed to pay the said amount regularly from the date of that order.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitir:ners submits that the maintenance awarded by the Court below is very meagre and insuflicient and in today's context, the cost of living standards of the people has been escalated in many folds. Hence seeks to allow the criminal petition by enhancing the maintenance.

¶35

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State would submit that instead of filing an appropriate application for enhancement of maintenance before the Court below, filing revision before this Court is misconceived and interference of this Court at t.eis stage is unwarranted Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case.

¶36

¶37

Recording the submissions made by^{the learned counsel for} the petitioner as well as the^learned Assistant^{PublicProsecutor} appearing for respondent No'2-State^{and upon perusing the} material available^{on record, this courtis not inclinedto interfere} with the well reasoned^{order passed by the Court below'}

¶38

10 Accordingly, the Criminal^{RevisionCase is dismissed'}

¶39

Miscellaneous^{Petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed}

¶40

Sd/- CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// q

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

to't. tn" Judge, Family Court, Ranga.Reddy.Districl,at,L'B Nagar' Hyd erabad (v" flh duEdd Z. One CCio^{Sri P.RaviShankar,Advocate (oPUU)} e: i;; CC, t"^{puUiic proleiutor,Hign Court ior the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad.(OUT) 4. Trivo CD^CoPies ks tramp*-

I ) \

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10912023

ORDER

CRL.R.C.No.179 o12014

¶48

s STAT5
o-{
o
i:)
1() $ t ilo\l ?sI3 I'7-o
'(.)
4
-.ct
t
1ir:--pl'iCl,,
'a-.:-;:i''

¶49

Dismissing the Crl.R.G

¶50

+- w- uld"t

Smt. B.Sandhya, Moosapet, R.R.Dt., and Anr., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. B.Sandhya, Moosapet, R.R.Dt., and Anr., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp., and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yama Venkata Ramana, Nalgonda Town and District Vs Manchukonda Krishna Murthy, Nalgonda District and Anr, by Pp.

Puli Bheemanna Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Its P.P and 2 Others

N.Ravi Kumar, Hyd Vs Public Prosecutor, Hyd and Another

Dr. T.P.Srinivasan, Vs Smt. v. Karuna, IAS

Gireesh Kumar Sanghi, Telangana State Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

G.Venu Gopal Goud Vs The Slate of Teiangana