Partly allowed

Smt G.Sumalatha v. G.Ashok Kumar and Another

Telangana HC11 Aug 2023CRLRC/1854/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision regarding maintenance, the High Court declined to interfere with the Additional Family Court's order granting a meagre maintenance amount. The court dismissed the revision, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the lower court for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127(1), noting that a decade had elapsed since the order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Court below for enhancement of maintenance.

Smt G.Sumalatha Vs G.Ashok Kumar and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVIsroN cAsE^{NO: 1854 OF 2013}

¶7

Criminal Revision Case^{under Sectiorn3gT&401 of Cr.P.C., againstthe} Judgment dated.29.07.2013^{in MC.No.177of 2010 on the file of the Judge} Additional Family Court,^{City Civil Court, Hyderabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt G.Sumalatha, Wo.^{G.Ashok Kumar, Occ:Housewife,Fi/o'H'No'1-1-} 38Ol3Ol2, Ashok Nagar,^{Extn., Hyderabad.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 G. Ashok Kumar, S/o. G.V.Apparao,^{Occ: Senior,Software Engineer, C/o'} Syniverse Techonologies^{INC 8125 Hl Woods Plam, Way Tampa, Florida -} 33647-1776, USA.

¶13

¶14

H.No.9-1-83/4; Hema^{Nilayam, Kotni Veedhi,Anakapalle, Near Maidhamma} Temple Vizag - 531 001^.

¶15

The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, Rep., by its PublicProsecutor, High Court of} A.P, at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶17

Counset for the Petitioner:^{SRl.V NAGESWARARAO}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.l: None Appeared}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{no.2: PUBLICPROSECUTOR}

¶20

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL REVIS^{ION CASE No.1854of 2O13}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal^{RevisionCase is frled by the petitioner} herein against^{the judgment in M.C.No.777of 2010,dated} 29.O7 .2013^{passed by the learned Additional Family Court,} City Civil Court,^HYderabad.

¶25

Heard the learned^{counsel for the petitioneras well} as learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor appearingfor} respondent No.2^-State.

¶26

No representation^{on behalfof respondentNo.1}

¶27

4 . Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submits that} respondent No. 1 is in receipt^{of the notice sent by the} learned counsel for the^{petitioner, but none appeared for} respondent No. 1 Therefore^{seeks to determine the matter} on merits.

¶28

It appears that respondent^{No.l is in receipt of the} notice sent by the learned^{counsel for the petitioner,but no} appearance has been recorded^{on beha,lfof respondent}

¶29

¶30

No. 1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as per the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in

¶31

"Banti^{Stngh and} others Vs. State of tlttar^pradeshtr, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits. Therefore this Court is inclined to proceed with the case on merits, this revision is filed against the judgment in M.C.No.IZZ of 2010, dated 29.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the petitioner herein with respondent No. t herein was solemnized on 27.02.2009 as per the Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner joined the company of respondent No. 1. There are no issues during their wedlock. The parents of petitioner gave dowqr ald spent huge amount for the purpose of marriage. After few days, respondent No.l and his parents tortured the petitioner both mentally and physically for additional dowry.

¶33

t (f996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

¶34

¶35

Respondent No.l used^{to comment on her body and} advised her to^{go for operationlor removing unnecessary} fat and also started blaming^{that the petitioneris incapable} of conceiving and cannot^{begot children. The parents of} petitioner requested respondent^{No.1 as to when the} petitioner would be accompanying^{him to USA, respondent} No. 1 began evading their^{queries and was statingsome} vague excuses for non-receipt^{of Visa etc., respondentNo.1} finally arranged for Visa and^{the petitionerwent to USA} along with respondent No.l on 14.06.2009.^{At USA} respondent No.I remained^aloof from^{the petitioner and he} never bothered to talk to her nor^{made her comfortable in} the new^place.

¶36

On O2.O7.2O09 respondent No.l on^pretext of^an assignment at Germany, convinced the petitioner to^get back to India as there is no provision to take her there and she cannot live alone at USA. As per the wish and advice of respondent No. 1 , the petitioner came back to India. Subsequently, the petitioner tried to contact respondent No.1 but, respondent No.1 did not respond to her ca-lls and

¶37

¶38

kept her in dark. Unable to contact respondent No.l at USA and there was no help forthcoming from the parents of respondent No.1 at India, the petitioner went to USA on O2.O8.2OO9 and met respondent No.1, upon seeing the petitioner, respondent No. 1 picked up a qua-rrel and abused her in filthy language. When the petitioner tried to pacify him and calm him down, the respondent called the local police and complained against the petitioner. In the next day, respondent No.l left the house by leaving the petitioner alone at USA. Subsequently, the petitioner returned to India in the month of October, 2009 and stayed with her pa-rents

¶39

Elders intervened and tried to setfle the disputes and misunderstandings between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, but their sincere efforts proved futile and the attitude of respondent No.1 was not changed and moreover, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage before Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas country, Florida on 2I .O9.2OO9 with all false ald frivolous allegations.

¶40

¶41

The petitioner filed^{criminal complaint before the} learned XIII Additional Chief^{Metropolitan Magistrateand} Mahila Court, Normally for the^{harassmentof respondent} No.l and his parents under Section 498-4,^{406 IPC and} Section 4 and 6 of D.P. Act^{uide C.C.No.S14of 2009. The} petitioner has neither properties nor^{income to maintain} herself and now she depends on her^{parents. Respondent} No.1 totally neglected the petitionei and intentionally deserted her, respondent No.1 is^{a senior software engineer} and earning $62,400 American Dollars'Rs.27,45,600/-ⁱⁿ Indian Currency per month and is able to maintain^the petitioner.

¶42

Though the petitioner has sought to^{grant relief of} $ 1O,OOO/- American^{Dollars which is equal to} Rs.4,4O,OOO/- in Indian currency as maintenalce, but the learned Court below had passed an order granting Rs.20,OOO/- per month to the petitioner herein. Since the date of the order passed by the Court below to till today, one decadE hras been etapsed.^{In today's context,} the cost of living standards of the^{people have been escalatedand}

¶43

¶44

I I l I I I i

¶45

the maintenance granted by the Court below is very meagre. Later, it has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the unofficia_l respondent is not paying the awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/_ per month as well.

¶46

Learned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent_State submits that the petitioner without filing an appropriate application for enhancement. of maintenance before the Court below, filing revision case before this Court is misconceived and interflerence of this Court at this stage is unwarralted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the criminal revision case.

¶47

In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below at this Stage, granting the liberty as sought to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court below and make necessary application under Section 127(Il Cr.p.C. for enhancement of maintenance 1n accordance with law.

¶48

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶50

Granting liberty to the petitioner to agitate her cause before

¶51

the Court below

¶52

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

sd/- B. SATYAVATHI I DtPUw REGISTRAR I Cab

¶55

//TRUE^COPY//

¶56

SECTION^OFFIGER

¶57

to,.,. ,n" Additional Family court, city civil court, Hyderabad.^{(with Records if} 2 to the^{pubtic prosecutor,High courtfor the State of relangana at} ilrrl "". 3 BIl"Stil^{S?YI)oo,toRARAo' Advocate toPucl} 4 Two CD^CoPies

\rH v#..-

HIGH COURT

EW, J

DATED: 1110812023

ORDER

e OF TE<
,l! .ast ),)+
o
s"
<br>rrli
,/ot H

¶66

CRLRC.No.1854 of 2013

¶67

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶68

\uf" - 6,'r'

Smt G.Sumalatha v. G.Ashok Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt G.Sumalatha v. G.Ashok Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madipally Amruthamma Vs the Stateof Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Yeruva Inna Reddy, Sec Bad and Anr. Vs Yeruva Vijay Bhasker Reddy, Hyd and Anr.

Katkam Thirupathi Vs the State of A.P.

Sirasala Nagaiah, Nalgonda Dt., Vs M/S. Shriram City Union Fin Ltd., Nalgonda Andanr, Rep Pp.