Dismissed

Gollapally Subba Rao, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and 3 Othrs.

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023CRLRC/1855/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Revision Case filed against an interim maintenance order of 2013. The Court held that the revision was not maintainable relying on a preceding order stating that CrPC 397(2) does not permit revision against interim maintenance awards. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Gollapally Subba Rao, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

i l I I i I I I i

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY^OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 18 ss oF 2013

¶8

Criminal Revision Case under section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against^the Judgment made in Crl.M.P.No. 99 of 2013 dated 0210812013 in Ir/.C.No. 10 of²⁰¹³ on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge,& Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gollapally Subba Rao, Nalgonda Dt., S/o. Ramulu, RMP Doctor, R/o. Gangireddypalem Village, I,lachavaram lt/andal, Guntur District, now R/o. Shanthinagar Locality of Nalgonda Town and District.

¶11

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor,^High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶14

,.,. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Gollapally Kavitha, Wo. Subba Rao, Aged about 30^years ,Household, FVo. H.No. 4-10-707, Siddartha Colony, D.V.K.Road, Nalgonda Town and District

¶16

Gollapally Ravi Shankar, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about^{10 years,} Student, R/o. H.No. 4-10-707, Siddartha Colony, D.V.K.Road, Nalgonda Town and District.

¶17

Gollapally Sai Kumar, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 08^years ,Student,^Rl/o. H.No- 4-10-707, Siddartha Colony, D.V.K.Road, Nalgonda Town and District

¶18

(Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are being minors, represented by their natural guardian and mother i.e., respondent No.2)

¶19

,..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013{CRLRCMP.^NO : 2854^{OF 2013)}

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto}

¶22

stay all further proccedinlrs inclucl ng the payment of the maintenance to the respondent No. 2 h,:rern in li4.C Nr^'l 0 of 2013 on the f le of the Court of the Judge, Famrly Co u rt-cum-Additio nil I District and Sessions . udge. Nalgonda dated 02-08-2013, pending disposal of the criminal levision case

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

, I

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶28

CRIMINAL REVISI^{ON CASE No.1855OF 2013}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

I This criminal Revision^{is filedby the pe titioner/ respondent against} the order dated 02.08.2O13^{passed in Crt.M'P'No 99 of 2013 in M'C'} No. 1O of 2013 on the^hle of^{Judge, Familycourt-cum Additional District} Judge and Sessions Judge,^Nalgonda.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel^for the^{petitioner/respondent and the} learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{representing respondent/S tate}

¶32

Brief facts of the case^{are that the Court below passed order dated} O2.O8.2O13 in Crl.M.P.No^.99 of^{2Ol3 in M.C.No.10of 2013grantedan} amount of Rs.2,000/-^{(Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to the} petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1,OO0/- each^{per month to the petitionerNos.2 and} 3 towards interim maintenance^{to the petitioner/ respondent herein tilI} the disposal of the main^{M.C (Total maintenanceof Rs.4,0O0/-).Aggrieved} by the said order, the^present Criminal^{RevisionCaseis filed.}

¶33

karned counsel for the^{petitionerwould submit that the order} passed against the petitioner herein is^{not in accordancewith law and} therefore, seeks to set aside^{the same. On the other hand, the learned} Assistant Public Prosecutor^{representing PublicProsecutorwould submit} that the present^petition before^{this courtis not maintainable as it has} been covered by^{the order dated 27.04.2022in CrimitalRevision case}

¶34

l';r,,,'2 otJ

¶35

(SR) No.3 1!)8 o[ 2022 prrsse d lrl tl'rc I{on'l;lc Sr i Iustice Ii. l,axmzrn \'hcrcrir) it h:Ls bc,,n hclcl thzrt rr Ro,ision Application is rrot maintainable :rgainst .rn intcrinr ordL'r granling intcrim maintcnance in thc light of Scctiorr 397 (2) of^()-.P.C.

¶36

A perusal ol thc n:cord sl'rows that the Criminzrl Revision Case pcrtains to thc year 20 13. Tht: nraintcnancc awardcd by the Court below is sufficicnt and al)propriate . lt ls needless to mcntiorL that lhe petitioner is at liberty to worl( out thc remt:rlies as available undci la'.{,.

¶37

ln vierv of tl-rc above, this Court is not inclnt d to entcrtain the Criminzrl Revision Case at lhis stagc. Accordingly, tht: Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶38

Miscellaneous Petitions, pcnding if any, shall starrd closed.

¶39

SO/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR (lP //rRUE coPY/ t

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

1 The Judge, Family Court-cum^{AdditionalDistrict Judge andSessions Judge,} Nalgonda.

¶43

I two- CCs to Pul)lic Prosecutor^{.HighCourt for the State of Telangana,at} HyderabadlOUTl

¶44

? Cjne CC to SRl. CHALAKANI^{VENKAT YADAV' Advocate} [OPUC] Two CD Copies

BIV

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712023

STAIE. o
n
'o+
( v
:) a)
..)
1[ [\B $B
i//<br>

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRLRC.No.1855 of 2013

¶53

DISMISSING THE CRLRC WITHOUT COSTS @q"t

¶54

g o(dn^a3

Gollapally Subba Rao, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and 3 Othrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gollapally Subba Rao, Nalgonda Dt., v. State of Ap., Rep Pp and 3 Othrs.

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

Bhadrappa , Bhadranna Vs Penna Cement Industries Ltd., and Another

Tameezuddin Ahmed and Another Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Manoj Tiwari, Chhattisgarh., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Smt K.Adilakshmi and Another Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Mangala Gouri Shankar Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Mohd. Kaleemuddin, Jidda, K.S.A. and Ano Vs Abdul Aziz Khan, Hyd and 2 Othrs