Dismissed

Mohd. Atheeq Khan v. Sahera Begum

Telangana HC6 Jul 2023CRLRC/2013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court considered an appeal against maintenance orders granted to the wife and three minor children. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the wife's rental income and his own financial status, concluding that the maintenance amount was appropriate and dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed and miscellaneous applications pending were closed.

Mohd. Atheeq Khan Vs Sahera Begum — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t32s11

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2013 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C against the Judgment made in crl.A.No.122 of 2017 , dated 21to3l2o18, on the file of the court of the ll Additional District and sessions Judge, (FTC), Mancherial preferred against the order made irr DVC No.18 of 2014 dated 13t12t2016 on the file of the court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Mancherial.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd.'rAtheeq .khan, S/.Yusman Khan, Rl/o Maruthinagar, Mandamarri presen y at Janmabhoomi Nagar, [Mancherial.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

.S.ahera Begum, W/o.Mohd. Atheeq Khan Rl/o H.No. 42-BS|2A, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial.

¶13

legna Thabassum, D/o.Mohd. Atheeq Khan, aged^.17 years, Rt/o.H.No. 4285/2A, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial.

¶14

g. Alrgqn Thabassum, D/o.Mohd. Atheeq Khan, aged 1S years, Rl/o H.No. 4285/2A, Maruthi Nagar, Mancherial. (Respondents No. 2 and 3 are being minors rep by their Mother natural guardian Respondent No.1 ).

¶15

.....Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioners

¶16

The State of Telangana, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the a,u," 5t O

¶17

I:*=SPONDENT

¶18

lA NO; 3 OF 201E

¶19

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court rnay be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2017 daled 28-03-2018 on the fite of the il Additionat District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mancherial including order dated 13-12-2016 passed in

¶20

DVC.No. 1B of 2O14 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial pending disposal of the revision in the interest of^justice and lo pass

¶21

For the Petitioner : SRI P.MEHAR SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate

¶22

Forthe Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI JAKKULA SRIDHAR, Advocate

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

I I

¶25

, I

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISIoN CASE No.2O13^{OF 2Or8}

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

1 . The husband/ revision^petitioner IS questioning the order of learned Sessions Judge conlirming^the maintenance in the appeal filed before hirn^{questioningthe} order of learned Magistrate in^{D.V.C.No. 1B} of²⁰¹⁴ Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence^adduced during trial directed an amounl Rs.3,000/-^{to be paid to} edch of the petitioners i.e., wife and children.

¶30

The husband questioned the grant of maintenance on the ground that wife was getting rental income of nearly Rs. 15,000/The said claim was rejected by both the Courts below and found that the petitioner/husband 1S bound to pay the maintenance. The said aspect of the^wife getting Rs.15,000/. was considered by both the Courts below

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vvould submit that when the wife is getting an amount of Rs.15,OOO/- as rcntal income, the maintenance has to be

¶32

¶33

set aside. According to the counsel, though the petitioner is an RMP Doctor, he rs rrot making any money to pay his wife and ch ildren

¶34

I do not find anv reason to set aside the order of both the Courts belou, findir-rg rhat the petitioner is liable to pay maintenemce to the r.l.ife and children. Maintenance of Rs.3,000/ each in the present day cost of Lving is meager amount. flowevcr, I do not intend to pass any orders regarding quantum. It js for the parties to adjudicate the same before the trial Court.

¶35

5 Accordinglv, the Crimir-ral Revision Casc is dismrssed Miscellaneorrs appJicatior-rs pending, if any, shall stand

¶36

clo sed

¶37

¶38

Sd/-B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYil G SECTION OFFICER

¶39

¶40

The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mancherial.

¶41

Two ccs to the^pubric prosecutor, High court foriib state oi i"rrng"na ,t Hyderabad (OUT)

¶42

One CC to Sri P.Mehar Srinivasa Rao, Advocate tOpUCl

¶43

9nu^{CC to Sri JakkutaSridhar. Advocate} fOFO-Cj-

¶44

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/07/2023

15 *...;t.
,.,
I
,l

JUDGMENT

CRLRC.No.2013 of2018

CRL.R.C, IS DISMISSED

Mohd. Atheeq Khan v. Sahera Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Atheeq Khan v. Sahera Begum

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

M.Jagmohanlal , Vs the State of a.P.,. Rep by Spl. Pp.

Kumbham Suresh Reddy (A1) Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, Rep by Chief Manager., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 8 Otrs.

Avisetti Prasada Rao, (A9) Vs The State of A.P.

Kollu Naresh Vs State of Telangana

Putta Krishnaiah, Vs The State of Telangana