Dismissed

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC20 Feb 2023CRLRC/2056/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed to challenge a Family Court maintenance order. The court dismissed the revision as infructuous because the underlying original petition was disposed of in 2013, rendering the challenge ineffective.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed as infructuous; pending miscellaneous applications are closed.

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

cRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE N O: 2056 0F 2009

¶7

criminal Revision case Under Section 397 (1) & 4oi of c.p.c 1973 against the Judgment date: 8-10-2009 made in l.A 755/2009 in o.p. 783/2008 on tneiite oi the Court of the Judge Family Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Sio. T.- papaiah, aged about 42 years, Occ:Govt. Employee, R:/o. Sundaraiah Nagar, Madhira, Khimmam Dstrict.'

¶10

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its public prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Thummala Sarada, Wo. Thummala Pavan Kumar, aged about 40 years, Occ:Private Employee, Rl/o_ C/o. Ramaiah, Flat No. 4b6, Ramu Toriveis, R.C Guards, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶15

NO:1O 009 CRL P. NO:2 oF 2009

¶16

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order, dated 08-10-2009 made in l_A. No. 755 of 2009 in o.P.No. 783 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Family court, city civir Courts, Hyderabad.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. V R REDDY KOWURI

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. K. SESHARAJYAM

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

{ (

¶22

, I

¶23

THE HON(,LTRABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGAFULIN CRIMINd L REVTSION CASE No.2O56 of 2OO-c)

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This^tlrin irLai Revision Case is fiIed aggrievt.d ty the Order daterl 08 10.2009 in 1.A.No.755 of 2OO9 in O P.I{o.783 of 2OO8 on th.e rle of learned Family Court, Cit1. C ivil Oourts, H5zdeabad, whr rt:in the petitioner herein is dire,:tr:d to pay Rs.2,000/ per rnonth to the respondent No.2 tc,',vards the maintenance a Ld further directed to pay a sLrm of FIs.3,000/in lump sllm tc t:re respondent No.2 towards legal ,:.'rpe,nses.

¶26

Sri Seurjt ev Jilleia, learned counsel repre s;r:rnting Sri V.R.Reddy X o. vrtri, learned counsel for the petir-iorLer, on record as rve il r s Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learne I A.dditional Public Prose :trtor for respondent No. I / St:ate and Ms.K.Sesharaj. am, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 are present

¶27

Learned :ounsel for the petitioner submit-.o(l taat the matter I'raLs^rre:cme infructuous, as O.P.No.783 :f 2C08 has a]readv beer c sposed of in the 1,ear 20 13

¶28

¶29

Same is recorded.

¶30

In view of the above submission, since the very pufpose of filing this criminal revision case has already been defeated this Criminal Revision Case has become infructuous and is

¶31

liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶33

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

SDI M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUZffGTSTRAR

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To, 1 The Judoe Familv Court City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶38

i. i;; Cc;i. in"'pruti"^{Prosecutor' High court for stateof Telangana'at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶39

Hvderabad [OUT]

¶40

3 d;-cb-- to Sri.^{v. a. ReddvKovvuri, Advoggtg [oPUCl}

¶41

;. o;; aa io sa.^{x. Sesharailam,Advocate [oPUCl}

¶42

Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COLIF T

DATED:201( 212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No 2056 of 2009

¶49

---a '' -' :-''-
.:. ,- . -i ,-,-^..,;.-.-,,
--l
i:
1 I fiAY 2021

¶50

DISMlSSlT\ G THE CIVIL REVISION CASit:

¶51

AS INFRU }TIOUS.

¶52

-_ -)
7
)
:9 l=
2D))

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thummala Pavan Kumar, Madhira, Khammam Dist. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Wajid Ali, Vs Sana Begum and Another

Dildar Khan, Vs Smt. Sahera Babu and 4 Others

G.Prabhakar, Vs the State of Ap Rpe by Its Pp Hyd.

Mekala Rajanna Vs the State of A.P. Rep. by P.P.

Murali Krishna Shinde , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

A.Bharat Raj, Vs a.Balaram and Another