Dismissed

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Telangana HC3 Feb 2023CRLRC/1873/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging an order of personal imprisonment for default of maintenance payments. The Court directed the petitioner to pay the entire outstanding balance immediately, allowing the wife and child to seek enforcement if unmet.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to pay the entire outstanding balance of arrears of maintenance at once without bail.

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, Vs the State of Ap Rep… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se l

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶4

AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1873 OF 2009

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC., against the order dated. 03-11-2009 in Crl.MP.No. 2711 of 2009 in Crl.tVP.No. 1054 of 2009 in MC.No. 34 of 2006 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class [\rlagistrate, at Khammam.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, S/o late Ramachandar Rao, Aged about 37 years, Occ:Sr. Manager, at Utkarsh lnfotect Pvt. Ltd., S.P.Road, S.H.25, Ground Floor, Minarva Complex, Hyderabad

¶12

...REVISION/PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶15

Kattunga Padmavathi, Wo Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, Housewife, Fl/o H.No.6-2-46l4, Jammibanda Area, Khammam Town & District.

¶16

Kaftunga Chintu, S/o Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, aged 3 years, (being minor rep. by its mother and natural guardian, Kattunga Padmavathi.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

CRLRCMP. NO: 2623 OF 2009

¶19

Petition under Section^'151 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 orderdt.03-11-2009 in Crl.MP.No. 2711 of 2009 in Crl.MP.No. 1054 of 2009 in MC.No. 34 of 2006 on the file of the lAddl. Judiciat First Class Magistrate, at Khammam.

¶20

¶21

! I I , i I I I I I

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. D KANAKA SUNDAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri. MUTHYALA MURALIDHAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRl. MEHERCHAND NORI The Court made the following: ORDER

l I l

I i I i

I I i

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CA SE No. 1873 of2OO9

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 (1) and 40 i of the Criminai procedure Code, aggrieved by the Order dated 03.1 1.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.277t of 2009 in Crl.M.p.No.1O54 of 2OO9 in M.C.No.34 of 2006 passed by the learned i Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam, u.herein the triai Court dismissed the petition filed under Section t27 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1O54 of 2009 directing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for default of arrears of maintenance amount.

¶32

The facts in brief are as under: The marriage of the revision petitioner with the respondent was taken place on 27.O5.2OO 1 and during the wedlock the respondent No.2 gave birth to the respondent No.3. On account of disputes between the parties the respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed M.C.No.34 of 2006 seeking maintenance from the revision

¶33

petitioner. Artcr fuli flccigecl trial, the trial court has clirectecr the revision petitioner to pay Rs.2,500/_ and Rs.1,500/_ per month to the respondcnts llos.2 and 3 herein respectively frotn 26.10.2006.

¶34

Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed Criminal Revision petition before learnecl principal Sessions Judge, Khammam vide Crl.R.p.No.1g of 2OOB. After perusing the record :tnd on hearing both sides, the same was dismissed and the quantllm of maintenance was modified and the revisjon petitioner is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondents Nos.2 a,d 3 herein respectively from 1O.06.20O6.

¶35

O: When the revision petitioner failed to pay the said ainount, the respondents Nos.2 a_nd 3 herein have filed Crl.M.P.No. 1O54 of 2009 under Section 125 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking warrant against the revision petitioner and the said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate and directed the revision petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for default of arrears of maintenance amount.

¶36

¶37

i I I I I !

¶38

05 Aggrieved by the same, the revision petrtioner riied one more petition in Crl.M.p.No.2Z1l of 2OO9 under Section ',27 (31 of the Criminal procedure Code and after due enquiry, the trial Court dismissed the petition on 03. Il.2OOg holding that there are no merits.

¶39

Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner on the following ground s

¶40

r. The trial Court has not applied 3udicial mind in appreciating the facts and material evidence.

¶41

ii. The trial Court failed to observe the directions of the learned principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Cr1.R.P.No.i8 of 20O8 dared 03.07.2OO9 and ought to have directed the respondents Nos.2 arld 3 to file a calculation memo to that effect.

¶42

iii. The trial Court in spite of ordering the imprisonment of the petitioner, might have ordered for attachment of properties.

¶43

¶44

Heard Sri ,1e har Chand Nori, lcarned counsel ror the respondents Nos.2 and 3 and Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned ACditronal pubiic prosecutor for the State I Respondent No. 1 ,,r,as present. This Criminal Revision Case has been posted today under. the caption Tor crismissar. in spite of it, no representation on behalf of the revision petitior-rer Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of on merits

¶45

Norv the point for determination is:

¶46

Whether Order dated 03.1 1.2009 ln Crl.M.P.No.271I ot 2OO9 in C.f.rrr.p.N".1Oi+ of 2009 in M.C.No.34 of 2006 passed b).th;i;;;. dI Additional Judicial Magistiare of p.i..t- Cta"" at Khammam, is liable to be set side?

¶47

POINT

¶48

As seen from the record, the Orders of the trial Court in M.C.No.34 of 2006 has been modified by the Revisional Court i.e., the learned principal Sessions Judge, Khammam in Crl.R.p.No. 1g of 200g were in force wherein the quantum of maintenance was modiheci ald the revision petitioner is directed to pa,y Rs.2,000/_ aLnd Rs. 1,000/_ per month to the rdspundents Nos.2 and 3 heretn respectively.

¶49

I l I tI I

¶50

This Court vide Orders^{dated 1 6. | | .2OO9 while granting} interirn suspension^{of Orders in Crl.M.P.No.1054 of 2008 in} M.C.No.34 of 2006 imposed a condition^{that the petitioner} shall pay Rs.3O,O00/- within four^{weeks and remaining} amount shall be payable in five^{equal monthly instaiments.}

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and³ has fairly submitted that as per the interim orders in this Crim inal Revision Case, this Court has directed that as on that date the petitioner has paid Rs.37,500/- out of Rs.1,08,000/- and balance amount of Rs.70,500/- was found to be paid. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that as on today he has no information whether the petitioner has paid any amount of balance or not

¶52

1 1. In any case, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was legislated in order to see that the wife and children will not put to hardships, in case if husband neglects them without any valid reason and the wife has no means to maintain herself.

¶53

i : II I

¶54

Considering thc^{circumstances, therevision}

¶55

petitioner is hereby directecl^{to pay the entire balance alrlount} at once rvithout lail,^{failir-rg rr.hich the respondents Nos'2 and} 3 are at liberty^{to approachLl're trial Court for enforcementof} the same.

¶56

With the^{above clirectlons,this CrimirralRevision}

¶57

Case is dismissed.^{There sl-ra.ll be no orderas to costs}

¶58

As a sequel,^{pending MisccllaneousApplicationsin this}

¶59

matter, if any,^{shallstancl closcd'}

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

Sd/- T. KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR 4o

¶62

SECTION^OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

1 . The I Additional^{Judicial First class ltlagistrateat Khammam'}

¶65

Two ccs to^{the PublicProsecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at} Hyderabad^(OUT)

¶66

One CC to^{SRl.D KANAKA SUNDAR, Advocate IOPUCI}

¶67

One CC to SRl.^{MEHERCHAND NORI, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶68

Two CD CoPies

pr VH \ .}"-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1873 of 2009

¶74

¶75

!1,
,
.i' .$
\<br>\ J.
+!F , /
) ..i.:i;'r:'
i.r'
J-.

¶76

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶77

WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

3^)-<

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kattangu Murali Mohan Rao, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

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

Ramesh Dusangu , Ramesh Kachru, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Sri G.Srinivas, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp and 2 Others

P. Dharmendar, Hyderabad. Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad.

Varala Naga Raju, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Its Pp., and Another

Vankar Raj Karan Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Nalla Lakshmi Vs State of A.P. Rep.by Pp and 2 Others