Dismissed

Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Telangana HC15 Mar 2023CRLRC/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed to set aside a family court order granting maintenance, the High Court found no infirmity in the lower court's decision. The revision petition was dismissed, though the petitioner was permitted to maintain a separate application under Section 126 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed. The order does not preclude the petitioner from prosecuting a petition under Section 126 Cr.P.C.

Tirupathi Rao Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

WEDNESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 6 OF 2020

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 3971401 of CrpC against the order dated.2110612019 in M.c.No.30112013 on the fite of the court of the XV Additional District and sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge-cumll Additional Family Judge, R.R. district, Kukatpally.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Tirupathi Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o. H.No.14-220-677113618, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Borbanda, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, And 2 Others, rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

9mt.T,Lakshmi, W/o Tirupathi Rao, Aged about. 43 Years, Occ. Household, Ri/o. H. No. 1 4-2 20-677 I 1 3618, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Borbanda, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITlONER No.1

¶15

T.Poojitha, D/o T.Lakshmi Occ. Not Known, Ri/o. H.No.14-220-67711361P, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Borbanda, Hyderabad (Not a necessary party)

¶16

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER No.2

¶17

IA NO 20F 2020

¶18

Petition urdr r Section 151 CpC praying that in the ci-r;umsrtances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High court ma 7 be pleased to suspend the ope'at on of the order dated.21 t061201s passe,l in t\1.c.No.301/2013 on the file of the c ruil of the XV Additional District and se;s onr; Judge-cum-XV Additional lt/letroco itan sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Judge, R.R. district, Kukatpally g ending disposal of the Criminal Revision Oase

¶19

Counsel for the Pe, itioner(s):SRl. CHAITHANYA K

¶20

Counsel for the Re, ipondents: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG, The Court made thr following: ORDER

¶21

Crl.R.C. No.06 of 2020

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISIO CASE No.O6 OF 2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.CJ by the petitioner/respondent to set aside the order dated 21-06-2019 passed in M.C.No.301 of 2013 by the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Il Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.

¶28

The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the learned Family Court Judge granting maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/per month to the 2d respondent.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶30

that the trial Court had not correctly arrived at the conclusion

¶31

Crl.R.(:. No.06 of 2020

¶32

¶33

that the 2"d respondent is not the wife of tl^is petitioner. Admittedly, tl re 1{ marriage of 2nd respondent arrd helr husband was subsistir rg when the petitioner and the 2'i respondent started livinc together. The house was cons:ructed by this petitioner in the name of the respondent Nc,.2 and she is keeping rent: by letting out portions in the said building. In the said circunrs'ances, the maintenance granted ry, tlre learned Family Judoe is devoid of merits and has to be set ;tsicle.

¶34

As seer from the order, learned Family Corrr_ Judge found that the first marriage of 2nd respondent was performed when she was a rrinor under the Hindu Law. Furthr:r, the house propefi whi,:h was purchased by the petitioner vras registered in the nanre of 2nd respondent herein. Furth,:r, tlre father's name in the school record of the children also rer=lected the name of petil ioner as father.

¶35

In the said circumstances, the Court below found that there no va lid reasons to refuse maintenancer arrd granted _r ll': maintenanr-e amount of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.

¶36

However, the claim for maintenance on behalf of the daughter

¶37

was refused.

¶38

Learned counsel further submits that^{for the reasonof 2nd} respondent having other means of income, this^{petition is filed} under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. for altering the order^{of Court} below.

¶39

Since, I do not find any infirmity^{in the orderpassedby} the learned Family Court Judge, this^{Court cannot under} revisional^jurisdiction cannot set aside^{the order,unless they are}

¶40

illegal or incorrect.

¶41

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Revisionis dismissed.However,} the order in the^{presentpetition} will^{not preclude the petitioner} from agitating before the Family Court to^{prosecutehis petition} under Section 126 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

( (

¶43

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any,^{pending, shall standclosed.}

¶44

Sd/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUWREG]STRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

) I

¶50

The Court of the XV Additional District^{and SessionsJudge-cum-XV} Additional Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge-cum-llAdditional FamilyJudge'} R.R. district, Kukatpally.

¶51

One CC to SRl. CHAITHANYA^{K Advocate} [OPUC]

¶52

(WWEWLfiW ca.,+ hrtta sh6 o[^T.C,6:,aEtftf,|,"

¶53

Two CCs to the^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶54

Two CD CoPies AA

)

HIGH COUR'i

KSJ

DATED: 1510312023

-^.,,.:..',. ?^{1 $'ti llll}

¶60

ORDER

¶61

CRLRC.No.t of 2020

¶62

THE CRIMIN{I RIVISION CASE

¶63

IS DISMISSET) qr"d @w"

Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Telangana, 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

Karri Laxman Rao and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Gundada Murali Krishna and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

Ram Sudheer Reddy Palnati Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Farooq Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. P. Vijaya Vs The State of Telangana and another

Nageswar Rao.K Vs State of Telangana and another