Dismissed

Radhari Ashok Kumar, Ananthapur Dist. v. Radhari Sujatha, Warangal Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023CRLRC/2030/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Revision Case filed to stay proceedings in a maintenance judgment, the High Court considered the petitioner's claim that the lower court doubled a Lok Adalat award without justification. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and observing the escalation of living costs, the Court held that it was not inclined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case and all pending interim applications were dismissed without costs.

Radhari Ashok Kumar, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Radhari… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e9 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYOERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENW EIGHTH^{DAYOF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMIN L REVISION CASE NO: 2030 OF²⁰¹⁶

¶7

Revision Case filed under Sections^{397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment} dated 16.03.2016^passedin M.c.No.^{36 of 2004 on the file of the lll Additional} District & Sessions Judge's Court,^Warangal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Radhari Ashok Kumar, S/o Rajamalaiah^{Aged about 62 Yrs, Occ Rtd- Field} Worker, Ri./o H.No 20-'119, Hanumesh^{Nagar, Guntakal, AnantapurDistrict} 515801

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Radhari Sujatha, W/o Radhari^{Ashok Kumar Aged about 49Yrs,Occ} Housewife H.tto.zs-+-+ao, Vishnupuri,^{Khajipet Warangal District}

¶13

2 The State of Telangana, rep. by its^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of} - . Judicature at Hydeiabad For the State^{of Telangana and the Stateof Andhra} Pradesh

¶14

...RESPONOENTS

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201 6(CRLRCMP.^{NO:2995 0F 2016)}

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be} pleased to stay of all further^proceedings in order^{dated 16-03-20'16 passedin} t,,t.C.No.gO of 2OO4 on the file of^{the Court of the lll AddlDistrict & Sessions} Judge's Court, Warangal.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017^{(CRLRCMP.NO:2919 0F 2017)}

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court may be} pleased to extend the interim order^granted inCrl.RC.No.2030^{of 2016, dated} 05.08:2016.

¶19

l.A NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

Petition under section^{482 of Cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be} pleased to extend the interim order^{granted in Crl R.C'No2030 of 2016'dated} 5lOBl2018 in the^{interest of justice.}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Petitioner :Sri M.P. KASHYAP}

¶22

Counsel for Respondent^{No.2 : Ms. SHALINI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC} PROSECUTOR

¶23

Counsel for^{Respondent No.1: None appeared}

¶24

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶26

CRIMINAL R-EVISION CASE No.2O3O OF 2016

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to stay all the proceedings in order dated 16.03.2016 passed in M.C.No.36 of 2OO4 or:. the frle of the Court. of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^' the petitioner is complying with the order of this Court passed on 05.08.2016 and would submit that the order passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge in M.C.No.36 of 2014 dated 16.03.2016 is not in accordance as the learned Court has doubled beyond the award passed by the Lok Adalat which is not permitted and is against the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as held in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury V. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy^t, tloat 25yo of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife in a case filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a retired employee of railways and drawing a pension of Rs.8,245/- and

¶30

'^{(2oti) t4 scc2oo@2018)r scc}

¶31

¶32

further would submit 1o aliow the criminal petrtion or atleast to consider to pa]' Rs.2,O00/- to the unofficial respondent as maintenanc( , as the petitioner has already married and have 3 married daughters artd seeks to consider the matter and pass appropriate order.

¶33

No representation on behalf of learned counsel'for the unofficial res ponctent.

¶34

Learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the same and he would sutrmit that in thc award passed by the [ower Court a detailed orclcr hzrs beer.r passed wherein after considering the relevant factc,rs and upon framing the points for consideration the learned Court belou, has appropriately passed the order relying upon in the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajathi Vs. C.Ganeshan reported in 1999 (21 ALT page 265(SCl^.1999(SCCI Criminal 1118, AIR Supreme Coutt 2374 and also relying upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1999121 ALR Criminal page 7 NRC Orissa would further submit that under the maintenance case, if no evidence is produced by the husband, th.rt wife has got income cannot be accepted and has awarded the maintenance of Rs.250O/- to the unoffrcial

¶35

¶36

¶37

respondent, at this^{junctureindulgence of this court is not} warranted.

¶38

Considering^{the material fact before this Court and upon} considering submissions^{made by both counsel,this court is of} the view that the cost^{of livingfrom 2016 to till today has been} escalatingmanifold.HencethisCourtisnotinclinedtoifterfere with the order^{passed by the Courtbelow'}

¶39

6 Accordingly, the Criminal^{RevisionCase is dismissed' No}

¶40

costs

¶41

Interim applications,^{pendingif any, shall stand dismissed'}

¶42

//TRUE COPYII

¶43

Sd/.M.MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR qp

¶44

SECTION OFFICER