Dismissed

N.Rajesh v. Smt. N.Rekha

Telangana HC19 Jul 2023CRLRC/1904/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble High Court dismissed criminal revision and miscellaneous applications seeking challenge to lower court order granting maintenance and compensation. Court found no need to address substantive questions given prima facie support for discharged remedy. Registry ordered court fees.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case and Miscellaneous Application dismissed without hearing; case file sent back.

N.Rajesh Vs Smt. N.Rekha — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR T]{E STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD^-_-'

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREi

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINA L REVIS ION CAS E No: 1904 oF 2018

¶7

criminar Revision case^ under sections 3g7 & 401 0f cr.p.c. against the order ti e fire of the court of the V dated:03-05-2018 made in crr A.No a55 "r zorz "" Additionat Metropotan Sessions lragl^{-iM;iL -dornl} ,t Hyderabad, which is passed by confirminq the order dated,os-06'-i01a p;lo rn ovc.tto.t 29 0f 2012 0n the file of the Court of the ilt Metropotitan frfrgiri[liiyaerabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

NrT,',',1i1;36"s EfllfiJ,,t::.or33[T*:^{vears, occ FruitVendor, R/oH No.4-8-}

¶10

AND

¶11

...Petitioner/Appellant Respond6nt No.1

¶12

1 Smt. N.Rekha, Wo. Raiesh Aged about 31 years, Occ. Fruit Vendor, Rl/o. H No 20-'r -i 088/1 59, vrvekana"no, r.r"giiiir;;;oI]Euranpoor, Hyderabad

¶13

... RespondenURespondenUAppellani

¶14

N.Ramraj,

¶15

3 N":?"JEII'3Shfll?f?ill3;"t?ilondent^{No 2 & 3 are R/o H No.4-8-621} ,

¶16

(Respondent No.2 and 3 are not necessary parties as they were set_exparte in DVC No. 129t2012)

¶17

...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents No.2 & 3

¶18

4 lififrtlfig.l"langana,^{Rep. bv its Public Prosecutor, Hish court Buitdinss}

¶19

...Respondent

¶20

IA NO 1 oF 201o

¶21

Petition und rr Section 482 of Cr p.C. prayinq that n th€ circumstances stated tn the affid; vit fited _in_supp"rt^{,t t-n"tp"{iiil,,, tn. ftighCourt} may be pleased to stav a I further- proceedings in pursuL tc() ( I or( ers passed in - crl A No 455 of 20' z on *'e rire oirhJclr.t'.r inlvooo rr, erroporitan Sessions Judge (Mahita (lc rrr) ar ,Hyderabad, Jt.^-bi.is'zc l8 whr ;tr is passed by confirming the orde ,assed by rn"-rrr-i',lutioJ""ritli ir,,rgir,r,, . ar Hyderabad, in R"Y;i#"arr]9""f ;20 2 dated 0d.oo zora p""[,iioi.pr.nrcf .he above Criminal

¶22

Counsel for the pet tioner: SRI VIKHAR AHMED

¶23

Counsel for the Res r)c)nclents No.1: None Appeared

¶24

Counsel for the Res rcndent No.4: pUBLIC PROSECUI-OR

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE^{No.1904 OF 2018}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

1 . The petitioner/ husband IS qurestionrng the order of iearned Sessions Juclge^{confirming the maintenanceof} AS Rs.5,0oO/- and granting a^{sum ofRs. 1,00,000/-} compensation to the^wile

¶30

The learned III^{Metropolitzrn Magistrate having} considered the evidence^{onrecord lound thatthe} respondent/ husband^{ncglccted the r't'i fe and accordingly} granted maintenarce oi^{lts.5,O00/' and also asumol} Rs. 1,00,O00/^- towards^{compensation.}

¶31

The orders wcre carried^{in the appeal before the} V Additional^{Metropoiitar-iSe ssions Judge.l,earnedSessions} Judge found that there^{are no reasonsto disbelieve the} physical and psychologicai^{l-rarassment that was metedout} to the wife. Accordingly,^{the lcarned Sessions Judge} concurred rvith the^{findingsof the learned Magistrate and} confirmed ihe^{mainlcnancc and compensation'}

¶32

.-l

¶33

]. II r.. r tr ilo:r tht.ollsh rlre rc<:orcl. I clc r. L f incl :rrtr r.l-i'l,tl , ,i r h lhe siti(1 colt(.Lrrrent fir-rc inqr; :lai,st tlte lrrisl), tⁱ .rlt qrlr-rtinq ]ltitilttenance. TI,rc.e ar,. to qr-ounds lrr r111",'1,,,-, I itlt Lhe s:ricl rtr-c.lcr

¶34

Accor-rl t;11_r, tl-rc (lrirtrinal Revision ( asc, cli;ntrsscd N'lisccll:rrrcrIrapplicatior-r s pt:nding, il ln \l s^-ra.l st and closccl

¶35

Srlr-^:1. SATYAVATHI ./i DEI.U tY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE:)TI{fN^OFFICER

To,

.1 . The V Addrtiona lvletropolitan sessions Judge^{(Mahi a corrtrat -lyderabad}

¶41

(with records, if^tnY)

¶42

The lll^{Metropcrtzrn Magistrate'Hyderabad(withrer;ords' if lny)}

¶43

Two CCs^{tc the Lrrlblic Prosecutor'High Court for ther State c'Terlanganaat} HYderabad^{(OU ')}

¶44

4 One CC b^{SRI VIKHAR AHMED,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶45

Two CD^CoPtes

kam -)r'

HIGH COUR-

DATED: 1910712023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.IS 04 of 2018

¶51

,,. )-c
/, 1i;*
,l
li l
3
4i

¶52

THE CRIMINA[- REVISION CASE IS DISII/ ISSED uf'<-* i ),8"

N.Rajesh v. Smt. N.Rekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Rajesh v. Smt. N.Rekha

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

Arpula Shiva , Arpula Shiva Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Chellu Sai Nishanth Vs The State of Telangana

Shanta Kumari Kommavarapu Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Latheef Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Aijaz Vs Aliya Sultana

Sidhur Raj Kiran Vs The State of Telangana