Dismissed

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

Telangana HC6 Oct 2023CRLRC/1852/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case challenged an order granting maintenance to a minor child. The High Court observed that detailed examination is required regarding the child's age and found no infirmity to justify interference, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; the learned trial Court's order is maintained.

Peruri Santhosh, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

i i I I I

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

:PRESENT:

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMIN ALR^{EVISIONCASENO: 1852oF 201'l}

¶8

Criminal Revision^{Casefiled underSection 397 and401 of Cr'PC against the} OrOer OateA 31-01-2011made^{in tr/CNo15of 2008 on the file of the court of the} Judicial Magistrate^{of First Classat Suryapet'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Peruri Santhosh,^{S/o Ashok Occ: Barber, R/o PenpahadVillage and Mandal'} b;;;;"fly ;;t,ding^{at H No l-7-12511'Near RamakrishnaTalkies'Survapet Town'} Nalgonda^District.

¶11

...Petitioner/ResPondent

¶12

AND

¶13

Rept. by its^Public

¶14

1. The State^{of A.P. Rep.byPP , High Court'Hyderabad'} Prosecutor,^{High Courtof A.P , Hyderabad'}

¶15

...ResPondent

¶16

2 Peruri Sai^{Lokesh, S/o. Santhosh, Occ: Student' PeruriPushPa'D/o Santosh} n/o Xo.itifrnt,^{villageChiwemula (M) NalgondaDistrict' (being minor rep'} by his natural^{mother and guardian)}

¶17

...Respondents/petitioner

¶18

l.A. NO:2 F 201 CRL CMP. Oi 2774 F 2011

¶19

Petition under^{section 482 of cr.P.C praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the^{affidavit fiteo in support of the petition,.the High Court may^be} rhe operation^{ottheorder dt.31-01-2011 in tvrc.No.15 of 2008 on} ;i;;";ii" "i"y i,i.?I J,h" 6orrt t^{t|.," .tuoiciai t'rtagistrate of First class, at survaet,pending} disposal of the^Crl.R.C.,

¶20

Counsel for the^{Petitioner(s):SRl'A PRABHAKAR RAO}

¶21

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo'1 Sri VizarathAli' Asst'}

¶22

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

¶24

,' ,/
<br>

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTTCE E. V. VENUGOPAL} CRTM INAL REVISION CASE No.1852 OF 2011

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against^{the order in} M.C.No.15 of 2008, dated 31.01.2011^{passed by the learned} Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet^{(for short "the trial} Court").

¶28

Heard and perused the record

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that, respondent^{No.2 herein} is the son of the petitioner herein born through Perun^Pushpa The Petitioner has fell in love with the mother of respondent^No.2 and married her on 02.10.2001 as per Hindu law. As^the marriage is inter caste marriage no^{presentations} or dowry amount rvere given to the petitioner by the parents of the mother of respondent No.2. The petitioner and mother of respondent No.2 lived happily under one roof as husband and wife for about two years and out of their wedlock they blessed with respondent No.2 herein. Alter two years of marriage differences arose between the petitioner and mother of respondent No.2, they started living separately. Thereafter the mother of respondent

.. ,:'?.

No.2 filed OP.No.77 of 2OO2 before the learned Senior Civil Judge's Court, Suryapet and conciliation efforts made by LokAdalath were not fruitful and as such Lok-Adalath committee, Suryapet has recorded the terms of compromiie and passed an award dated 06.12.2003 by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and mother of respondent No.2.

¶35

The petitioner paid Rs.45,O0O/- to the mother of respondent No.2 only. As such respondent No.2 15 mlnor no amount is given to him by the petitioner. That as per the terms of the said compromise respondent No.2 is with his mother and the mother of respondent No.2 is residing at Komatikunta village of Chir,.vemula mandal at the mercy of her parents. Respondent No.2 is now studying lst^rclass at Komatikunta village and required some arnounts to meet the minimum necessities such as food, clothing, shelter and educational expenses and medical expenses. Respondent No.2 is minor and the mother of respondent No.2 herself is not in a position to maintain herself and as such respondent No.2 is unable to meet the expenses. Several times mother of respondent No.2 approached the petitioner ald expressed her helpless position in maintaining the

¶36

¶37

minor chilcl. It is bounden duty of^{petitioner tomaintain} respondent No.2. As such, the^{petitioneris a barber and earning} an amount ol Rs.5,O00/^per month.^{Therefore,filed M.C.No.15} of 2O0B scel<ing for maintenance.

¶38

The learned trial Court^after hearing^{the submissions made} on both sides and upon^{examining the material facts beforeit has} allowed tl-r e M.C., granting maintenance^{of Rs.60O/- per month to} respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the^{same, the present criminal} revision case is filed.

¶39

Upon careful consideration of the oral and^documentary evidences on record, this Court is of the opinion that^upon examining alt tl're u'itnesses and upon conducting the^{trial, the} trial Court has paised the award.^Therefore, this Court^{does not} find anything on record to show that the respondent^{No.2 has} attained the age of majority. This matter needs^detailed examination bv thc trial Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere urith the order^passed by the learned trail Court

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is

¶44

needless to mention that the petitioner is at iiberty to work out

¶45

the alternative remedies as available under law.

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald closed.

¶47

SD/- I.NAGA^LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

/' 54'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial^{Magistrate of First Class at Suryapet'}

¶53

Two ccs to^{the Public Prosecutor, Highcourtfor the stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶54

e. On. CC to^{'Sri R pRnAHnKARRAO, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶55

Two CD^CoPies

SP NS

r ,t

HIGH COURT

EW, J

DATED: 0611012023

A1E oF
$t$ $s
)a 11
.,./
qC ,.${)
+n ;:gfD

¶63

ORDER

¶64

CRLRC.No.1852 of 2011

¶65

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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.

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

Mohammed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

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