Dismissed

Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Jun 2023CRLRC/1872/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed revisions filed by husband and wife/child challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance. The Court held no infirmity existed in the original order and dismissed enhancement petitions, directing the wife to seek increased maintenance via the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No. 2164 of 2013 dismissed; liberty granted to file application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement.

Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

I t f I I

¶3

IN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 18 720F 2018 AND 2164 0F 2013

¶8

CRLRC.No. 1872 of 2018

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Seclions 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 20.06.2013 passed in MC.No. 35 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court - cum- lll Additional District Judge, Warangal_

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi, W/o. Veeraswamy, Age: 33 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H No 2-63 Enumamula Village of Hananikonda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶12

Sandepaka Unmai, D/o. Veeraswamy, Age: 8 years, Minor, rep by her natural guardian/ mother i.e., petitioner no.1 herein R/o. H No. 2-63 Enumamula Village of Hanamkonda Mandal Warangal District.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶16

Sandepaka Veeraswamy, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Railway Employee, Q No. 340/1 , Railway Quarters Shanthinagar, Kazipet, Warangal District.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/RESPON DENT

¶18

¶19

CRLRC.N o. 2164 of 2013

¶20

Criminal Re'rrsion Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order dated 20.06.2013 passed in MC.No 35 of 2011 on the file of the Judge, Family Court _ cum_ lll Additional Districl Judge, Warangal

¶21

Between:

¶22

Sandepaka Veeraswamy, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Railwav .Emptoyee,_e^{No. 340/1,'Raitway} euarterjSni"ti,i*gli"K;;i#,,^", Warangal District.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

1 The State of A.P., rep. by public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telarigana and the Sirt;; Ail'hra pradesh

¶26

2 Sandepaka Jeevanivothi, W/o. Veeraswamy, Age: 33 years, Occ. H.ouse wife, R/o. H trto. Z-OS gn-r-,.nr.Jf a''Viila'ge ot Hanamkonda Mandal. Warangal District.

¶27

a Sa.ndepaka Unmai, D/o. Veeraswamy, Age: B years, lVinor, rep by her natural guardian/ mother i.e., petitioner"no f i,ereln nlo H fio.,Z-bl Enumamula Village of Hanamkrinda w jno"i Wui.ngal Districi

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

l.A NO: 1 OF 20 13(CR LRCM P. NO: 3208 oF 2013)

¶30

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of lhe petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 20.06.20f S- prlr;O by the Judge, Famity Court, cum Ill Additionat District Judge, Wrraig.|n M.C.No.35 of 2O11, pending disposat of the Crl.R.C.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018

¶32

Between:

¶33

1 Sandepaka Jeevanjyoth.i, W/o Veeraswamy, Age: 33 years, occ. House wife, R/cj. H No. 2-63 rnumamura viirage"of Hanamftonol Mandal. Warangal District.

¶34

2 Sandepaka Unmai, D/o. Veeraswamy, Age: g years, Minor. reo bv her natural guardran/ mother i.e., petitioner"no.t irerein nro. iil[ol'z-bl E n u m a m u I a V i r ras e of H a n a m ron 0311;,xo;

¶35

lwslfttrsrBFllEh ;; ;;

¶36

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Telangana, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶39

Sandepaka Veeraswamy, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Railway Employee, Q No. 340/1 , Railway Quarters Shanthinagar, Kazipe| Warangal District.

¶40

¶41

...RESPON DENT/PETITIONER

¶42

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 22-11-2013 in Crl.RC.MP.No. 3208 of 2013 in Crl.RC.No. 2164 ot 2013 and dismiss the above Crl.RC.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioners in Crl.RC.No. '1872 oI 2018 &

¶44

Counsel for Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Sri AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ln Crl.RC.No. 1872 ol 2018 & Crl.RC.No. 2164 ot 2013 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶46

Counsel for Respondent No. 2 ln Crl.RC.No. 1872 of 2018 & Counsel for Petitioner in Crl.RC.No. 2164 ot 2O13 : STi E. VENKATA REDDY

¶47

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶48

¶49

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER

¶50

CRIMINAL REVISION CAS^E Nos.1872^{OF 2018and} 2L64 of 2OL3

¶51

{

¶52

COMMON ORDER:

¶53

CRIMINAL REVISION CAS E No.1872^OF 2018

¶54

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by wife and^{child to set} aside the order dated 20.06.2013^{passedin M.C.No.35of 2011on} the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional^{DistrictJudge,} Warangal and enhance the monthly maintenance^amountfrom Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- to the^petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.2.

¶55

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 21⁶⁴ ot 2Ot3

¶56

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by husband to set aside the order dated 20.06.2013^passed in M.C.No.35 of^{2011 on the file} of Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Additional District Judge,^Warangal.

¶57

Since the petitioners and respondent are^{partiesin M.C.No.35} of 2071, both these Criminal Revision Cases^{are heardtogether and} disposed of by this common order.

¶58

¶59

¶60

The wife and child filed M.C.No.35 of 2011 before the Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. The Judge, Family Court by order dated 20.06.2013 found that the wife is entitled for granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and the child is entitled for granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/-.

¶61

A Revision was filed by the husband vide Crl.R.C.No.2164 of 2013. This Court by order dated 22.11.2013 passed interim order suspending the order dated 20.06.2013 and directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the child.

¶62

The Family Court Judge having examined the wife and husband as witnesses found that the husband has neglected and harassed the petitioner No.1. Accordingly, deemed it appropriate to grant maintenance. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Family Court Judge in granting maintenance.

¶63

Learned counsel appearing for the wife and child would submit that the amount given as maintenance is not sufficient to meet the expenses of today's raising cost of living.

¶64

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case No.2164 of 2013 is dismissed.

¶65

¶66

The wife and child are at liberty to file application under

¶67

Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of the maintenance and the same shall be decided on merits by the Family Court.

¶68

¶69

Accordingly, Criminal Revision case is disposed off.

¶70

Miscellaneous Petitrons, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

SD/- CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYil Cp

¶72

To,

¶73

SECTION OFFICER

¶74

Th.e_Judge, Family Court - cum- lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. (With Records)

¶75

One CC to Sri AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶76

One CC to Sri E. VENKATA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI

¶77

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶78

Two CD Copies

¶79

Njb

¶80

8J ?.".q.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2110612O23

COMMON ORDER

CRLRC.No.1872 of 2018 & 2164 ot 2013

¶86

, .. ;:;
,,,:./"1
.,t-t$
\
.li:,:, .

¶87

DISPOSING OF THE

¶88

CRLRC No. 1872 ot 2O18

¶89

¶90

DlSMISSING THE

¶91

CRLRC No. 2164 of 2013

¶92

Pr"\q. zr<sup>o.\n-g'

Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandepaka Jeevanjyothi v. The State of Telangana

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

S.Sainath Vs S.Sandhya Rani

K.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

K.Shankar Vs the State of a.P., Acb, Karimnagar

Ajay Joshi, Vs The State of Telangana

Sandepaka Veeraswamy Vs the State of A.P. and 2 Others

Avadhutha Mahesh, , Uma Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana