Dismissed

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., v. Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC27 Jul 2023CRLRC/2033/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by the respondent to set aside an interim maintenance order granted by the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, in a main maintenance case (MC No. 112/2015) which had subsequently been closed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case No. 2033 of 2017 is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the respondent to work out other remedies.

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., Vs Mrs. Zee Shan… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2033 OF 2017

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.F.C against the Judgment dated 1810412017 made in MP No.3/16 in MC No.112l15 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mir F aiyaz Ali Khan, S/o late Mir Khader Ali Khan, Occ Pvt Service, Rl/o Zehra Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, D/o Ameer Nawaz Khan, Occ Fashion Designer, Fl/o. H. No. 1 7^-2-1 026, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hvderabad

¶14

...RES.'NDENTS/'ETITI.NER

¶15

CRLRCMP. NO: 3253 OF 2017

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 18-04-2017 passed in MP.No. 3 of 2016 in M.C. No. 112 ol 2015 by the learned Judge Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶18

Between:

¶19

Zeeshan Nawaz, D/o Mohd. Ameer Nawaz Khan, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No. 17-21 026, Madannapet, Hyderabad.

¶20

.....Petitioner/ Respondent No.1

¶21

And

¶22

1.-Mi Faiyaz Ali Khan, S/o late Mir Khader Ali Khan, Occ Pvt Service, Fl/o.m Plot No. 45, Road No. 1 4, B a nja ra H i^t I s, besid e.z;o;;$b",if Ei,lii eEtt;Sl#i

¶23

The State of f elangana, Rep by its Public Prosectrtor, Higlr Court of Judicature at l{yderabad

¶24

....Respondenu Respondent

¶25

Petition under Seclion 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in th€ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitiorr, the Figh Court may be pleased to permit tt e petitioner to withdraw the interim ma nlenzrnce amount as deposited by the respondent No.1 in It4C.112 of 2O15 in the irteres: of^justice

¶26

For the Petitioner : SRI M.LAXMINARAYANA FOR SRI MIR Fl\lY/\Z ALI KHAN, Advocate

¶27

Forthe Responden No.2: SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBtIC PROSECUTOR

¶28

Forthe Responden No.l : SRI SYED AHMED ALl, Advocat:

¶29

The Court made the 'ollowing: ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2O33 OF 2Ol7

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the 1n Order dated 18.O4.2017 passed in MP.No.3 of B016 M.C.No.ll2 of 2O15 on the file of the learned Additional Family Court Judge at Hyderabad.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that the Court below vide Order dated 18.O4.2017 passed in MP.No.3 of 2016 1n M.C.No.ll2 of 2015 granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner towards interim maintenance from the date of petition i.e. 14-07-2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is Iiled by the respondent to set aside the order.

¶35

During the COLITSC of proceedings, Mr.Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner by furnishing a copy of case details taken at e-courts submitted-thgt the main M.C. case itself has been closed and the

¶36

¶37

nature of disprsal was decided on 11-08-2119. Hent:e seeks to dismiss the pelition as infructuous.

¶38

Learned counsel for the unofficial r,--spondenl takes no objection. Lear ned Assistant Public Prosec ltor is^pt'esent also takes no objection but brings to the notice of this Court that This Court vide Order dated 27.O4.2O22 in C::I.R.O^'SF:) No.3198 of 2022 held that as against an interlocutory order, a Revision undr r Section 397 of Criminal Proc erlur e Code is not maintaina ole.

¶39

By takin I submissions of the learned c:trnsel for the petitioner and perusing the judgment relying rrpon the order passed by this Court, wherein the revision rs not maintainable, this Court is n rt inclined to entertain the Rt'visior-r at this stage, as the proceed ings hereunder are covered by the O:der dated 27.O4.2022 in^()rl.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 lrassed by this Court and even main :ase is disposed of as submitt':d by tl-re :ounsel.

¶40

According$, the Criminal Revision CtLse ir; dismissed as infructuous. E owever, it is needless to merti,)n that the respondent is;rt liberty to work-out the remedi,:s al; available under law- No c csts

¶41

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

¶44

Sd/-I.NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY,,,]REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY/i \ a-y SECTION OFFICER

¶45

¶46

The Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶47

One CC to Sri Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Syed Ahmed Khan, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710712023

I ir'.4 qe Srar6
io d
I t
(i c tl
oo t'r SEP M
:
1,
,:c p,rtC <br>-*. .-+

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLRC.No.2033 ol 2017

¶54

CRL.R"c. IS DISMISSI:D AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶55

A<
t)
'{Q
:-Yfr

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., v. Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., v. Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

Gogikar Rakesh Vs Gogikar Swetha

Chityala Akhil Vs State of Telangana

Syed Siraj Ali, Hyd Vs Mohd. Osman, Hyd and Ano

Mohd.Riyazoddin, Medak Dt., Vs Smt. Jabeen Begum, Medak and 4 Othr, Rep. Pp.

M.Mahendar Vs The State Of Telengana

P. Maheshwari , Mahalaxmi Vs the State of Telangana Rep. by Its P.P and Another