Dismissed

P.Srinivas v. Yadamma and 2 Others

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023CRLRC/1984/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision seeking suspension and setting aside a Family Court maintenance order was dismissed. The Court held that challenging a meagre maintenance award based on escalated living costs was not permissible, finding the case devoid of merits and unwilling to interfere with the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

P.Srinivas Vs Yadamma and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[^32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IVIONDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JULY

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1984 OF 2011

¶9

Revision filed under Sections 397(1) & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated. 25-03-201'1 passed in MC.No.247l2008 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family court, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar.

¶10

Between:

¶11

P.Srinivas, S/o P.Venkaiah, aged about 47 years, Occ:Driver in APSRTC at Midhani Depot., Ryo l0-96/1. Balapur X Roads Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

PETITIONERYRESPONDE NT

¶13

AND

¶14

.1. Yadamma, Wo P.Srinivas, aged 40 years, Occ: Houseworman, R:/o 1-17lA, Chamapet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶15

Naga Vaishnavi, D/o P.Srinivas, aged B years, being minor under guardianship of her mother the Petitioner NO.1

¶16

The State of AP., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High court of AP Hyderabad

¶17

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶18

CRLRCMP- NO: 2950 OF 201 1

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitaon, the High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of the order dI.25-03-2011^passed in M.C.No.24712008 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar^pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI- J U M V PRASAD

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l and 2:^AADESH VARMA

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HONOI'IIABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V VEIII.IG()PAL CRIMIN.6L REVISION CASE No.198,1 Ot' :2O l1

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The preserrt Criminal Revision Case is liled se eking to suspend the Orler dated 25.03.2011 passed in ltl.,3.1\1o.247 of 2008 on the Iile of learned J udge, Family Court, R an11a Reddy District at L.B.NrLgar and to set-aside the same

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as; we I as the learned Assistirnt Public Prosecutor appearini; ior the respondent- Statt,

¶28

A perusal of the record shou,s that the Revision p(.rtains to the year 20 1 1 arrd the learned counsel for the petib or-rer seeks to suspend the orcer passed by the Court belorv staiittg that, the petitioner does rot have any sufficient mearrs to nraintain his family members.

¶29

This Court upon careful consideration of the enl.ire material on record and alter hearing the submissions madt: by both the learned counsel is of the view that the mainte.nance awarded by the Court belov is very meagre and appropriate Challenging such a meagre anount is not permissible at this stage, as the cost

I I

of living standards of the people has been escalated. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court belou,. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision Case as the same is devoid of merits.

¶34

Accordingly, the Criminai Revision Case is dismissed.

¶35

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shatl stand closed.

¶36

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI ,TRUE COPY// DEPU TY-REG(qt) ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Naga(With Records if any)

¶39

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPUC]

¶40

One CC to SRL J U M V PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

One CC to SRl. AADESH VARMA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

5- Two CD Copies

¶43

''Y-Dr-

¶44

¶45

HIGH COURT DATED: 101971292,

¶46

ORDER

¶47

/-i
;,
t:i; NI
1 1 $f
Jr.)
<br>'".4
- Ii
\ 'i r: .:./.

¶48

CRLRC.No 1984 of 2011

¶49

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶50

@;f"6

P.Srinivas v. Yadamma and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Srinivas v. Yadamma 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

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

Smt. Paradapallyl Deepika, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Daljith Singh Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Polle Veeresh Vs Smt.Polle Usharani and 4 Others