Dismissed

Mededhi Ravi v. Medidi Rajni and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Aug 2023CRLRC/1831/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sec. 397 Cr.P.C., the High Court rejected the husband's appeal against a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor child, finding his evidence insufficient and the award reasonable. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, leaving the family court order intact.

Mededhi Ravi Vs Medidi Rajni and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1831 OF 2015

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 1O10712015 made in MC No.132l2013 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, at Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mededhi Ravi, S/o. Mededhi Sammaiah, aged 38 years, Occ Private employee, R/o.H.No.1'1-18-101211, Vivekananda Colony, Kashibugsar_UqlglLSg!^^ .__ ...PETITIONERY RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

Medidi Ralni, Wo. Ravi, aged 31 years, Occ Housewife, Fl/o. H.No.3-153, Bheemaram village, Hasanaparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

¶12

Medidi Mounika, D/o. Ravi, aged 17 years, Occ: Student, F/o. H.No.3-153, Bheemaram village, Hasanaparthy Mandal, Warapgal District. (Being minor rep, by her mother and Natural guardian of the 1"' respondent herein) ....Respondents/ Petitioner No.1 and 3

¶13

State of Telangana, rep. by P.P. High Court at Hyderabad foithe State of Telangana and state of Andhra Pradesh'

¶14

...RESpoNDENT/ RESpoNDENT

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO: 2887 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order passed in M.C.No.'132 of 2013 dated 10.O7 .2015 on the file of Judge, Family Court at Warangal.

¶17

For the Petitioner : SMT A.KRISHNAVEN!, Advocate for SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondent No.3 : ASSISTANT PUBLTC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL E^{RIMINAL REVISION} CASE NO.I831 OF 2015

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with Section 40 1 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2015 passed in M.C.No.132 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judg,:r, Family Court at Warangal.

¶23

Heard Mrs.A.Krishnaveni, learned counsel

¶24

representing Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y izarath Ali, learned Assistant Public

¶25

Prosecutor rt'presenting learned Public Prosecutor for the 3.4 respondent/ S tate. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶26

The facts wl-rich lead to filing of MC No.132 of 2013, in brief, are that due t o physical and mental harassment for additional dorr.ry and having been necked out by her husband/the petitioner Lrerein from the matrimonial house after indiscriminatt:ly beating her, the 1"t respondent filed Crime No.132 of 2Cr 13 against the petitioner herein and his family

Page 1 oi'tl

j I iI

t I I I

.'H{

rrembers lbr the offences^punighable under^{Sections 498-A, 324} IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and that^sincetire respondent No.1 started li'ring^{separatel-v along with her children,} she sought rhaintenance to eke out their livelihoorl anci^{Lo provide} good education to her children. The petitioner herein clenied to pay the maintenance stating that the I^*t respond ent used to quarrel rvith them with the help of her relatives and unSocial elemen ts and even did not folloq, the directioirs oi the Legal Services Authority in FLSA No.i4 of 2AO'i for reunion wittr tl-ie petitioner and that he never neglected his wife and that the l"t respclndent is a working nurse, having earning capacity. The Court below, after considering the oral evidence of PWs.l,2 and RV/. 1 and documentary evidence marked under Ex.Al, directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,OOO/- per month to the 1"t respondent/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the 2.a respondent/child from the date of petition and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 l- to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards the cost of litigation. Further, since their son Sai Raj attained

¶32

Page 3 of4

¶33

majority by the time of order, no amount was awarded in his favour tou,ar ds compensatron.

¶34

4 . A ggrieved br the above said fir-rdings, the petitioner herein filed the presen t criminal revision case naming the said frndings as illega1, improper and incorrect and was made without considering the fact that the l"t respondent herself left the matrimonial house on ircr own without there being any fault on his part, u,ithout taking into consideration the financial and social status of tl.rt, petitioner and also the earning capacity of the lsr respondent e.nd the 1"t respondent's rejection to reunion with the petitioner in pursuance of directions passed in DLSA No. 14 of 2007.

¶35

¶36

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The evidence of PWs.1 ernd 2 shows that the petitioner neglected his wife and children though he has sufficient means of income. I Though the petitioner hcrein cited several social and Iinancial 1 constraints rlenying pa.r,ment of maintenarlce to his wife and children and also alleged that his wife is gainfully employed, he

¶37

f,.',fi

¶38

Pitge 4 c,l^.l

¶39

did not adducc any oral or documentar/ evidence to subst.'niiaic the same. F.irther, in^rrieu' of scrrtlcd laru iurd catena of^rleciSions, it is^i;he bounden duty and responsibility oI the pbtitior-rerl husband to take r:are of iris^,.vife anC children dr.;iy rendering financiai a.ssistarrce. F urther, lceepir,g irr. viev; tht: present standards of life and the fact tliat the 1"t re$poirder;t, rvit-hoht harring any source of income. has to iook a-fter the nplleep of hel chiidren anti tha.t th<: petitioner is traving sufficient mcans to rrraintain his wife ald chiidren. ltre ?-,n6qrrt of ruairrte:an.:e' awarded hy the Ccurt below is a cluite reasonarbie and aft:r'ciabie one and hence, the said lurdings cannot be interfered.^'ltl'ir': crlminal revision case cioes not desei've merit consicierntion.

¶40

In the result, this Criminal Rer.ision Case is dismrlssed Interlocutory applications, if arry pending, shall alsr,, st.and

¶41

dismissed

¶42

Sd/-K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// LfO

sECT|oN brrrcen

'1 . The Judge, Family Court, at Warangal.

¶47

fwo CCi to the Public^{Prosecutor,HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶48

Ohe CC to Sri P.Prabhakar^{Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Copies

Kj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/08/2023

ORDER

; L:
.,li
^, it
i-t
t
.i' ,,/
h
'.) ...1
'?,
. ,,

¶55

CRLRC.No.1831 of 201 5

¶56

CRL.R.C, IS DISMISSED.

¶57

Mededhi Ravi v. Medidi Rajni and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mededhi Ravi v. Medidi Rajni and 2 Others

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

Kolipaka Raju, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

N.Rajender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Roopa Volety and Another Vs State of Ap., and Another

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Nizamabad., Vs Mundra Krishna, Hyd and 2 Otrs., Rep Pp.

Korepu Lingareddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Kunchala Ravinder Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Others