The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging an order enhancing maintenance to Rs. 2,000/month. The Court found no error on the face of the record to warrant interference.
Criminal revision case dismissed and miscellaneous applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1865 OF 20 09
Between:
Syed Wajid Ali, S/o. Late Syed Rahmat Ali, Private Service, No. 19-4-281 131/D, Sanjay Gandhinagar, Nawab Saab Kunta, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case to this Court against the Order of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC Cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in M.P.No. 851 of 2006 in MC.No. 163 of 1997, dated 15th day of July, 2009.
l.A NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLRCMP . NO: 2611 OF 2009)
Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, in M.P. No. 851 of 2006 in M.C. No.'163 of 1997, dated 15-07-2009.
For the Petitioner : Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor,
The Court made the following: ORDER
i
HO] IOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJU,T
CRIIIINAL REVISION CASE No.1865 of 2Or)9
ORDER:
This rr vision is liled aggrieved by thc ori[er:; dated ]5.07.2CrC9 j)aised bl the learned Additi,)nuLl Metr,rpolitan Sessions ilrc Ie for the'l'rial of JHCBBC-cum-Acldi rc:nat Faimly Court-cum'Xi llll Additional Chief Judge, Ily,1trraL.ad, in M P.No.851 tt 2006 in M.C.No.163 of 19!)7 cnlrirncing the rnonthil m:rir:lc nancc from Rs. 175l- to Rs.2,C00/ nr r uionth.
Respor Lent No.1 is the $'ife of the petitirr-r,:r' $'ho filed M.Cl.No.: 63 o ' 1997 against the petitioner see <irrg rni int:nance, and the sai,, retition was allowed on 13.10 l9!)() g;ranting maintenancc rf Rs.175/ per monlh. In the y,:ar 2OO) i.e., after lO vears. re sr crrdr:nL No. I has filcd M.P.No.85, I of 1lU16 seekrng enhanceme 1l o' rnainter-rancc under Section 'lit7 C'.P.C. rJn considenng 1->th sides, the trial Court has al.ou,t:il t.te said application rr n<l enhanced the monthly ntaint.en(rnce from Rs.175l to Ji s.2,O00/-. Aggrieved by the samc, trc pe titioner has filed th is rcvision erJlegir-rg that respondent Nc.I hcrself is carnir-tg inor.rr'. ,hc has rnarricd second time, he Ir:rs tri takc care
2
r-.+
of his wife and daughter, he is getting very meager amount and thereby not capable of paying maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1.
3
!
conlenLir)n ol respondcnt No.1 alleging that rcsporLdent No.1 herself l-as st lrted earning money and that he LLas t,; trLke care of his fa rnri',-
4
I
the maintenance in the year 2009 the cost of living has again increased when compared to 2023. The minor daughter must have become college going girl and similarly, the income of the petitioner also must have increased. Therefore, these circumstances would certainly give rise to cause of action for respondent No. 1 to file one more application for enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C., in case if respondent No. 1 feels that the petitioner is capable of paying more amount than what was enhanced already.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
\
To,
Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// se#gru oFFrcER
1 The Additional l/etropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum Additiohal Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad 2 One CC to Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies KNK DL t
I
HIGH COURT DATED:17iOi 12023
ORDER
CRLRC. No. 1 t 6{i of 2009
_ Ji
e o ^.. "; .i
// <-
ai
!)
2 1 JUt,| 20n
,., : .; .l
. ,
'i . !):'..-:--\t'. ',.,
CRIIVINAL RE V SION CASE IS DISIVISSEI)
bP S,Y ,9tAlFD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order enhancing maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be set aside in criminal revision.
Whether the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of showing trial court committed error on facts or law.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Syed Wajid Ali
Sana Begum
D.Nagarjun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
