Dismissed

G.Naveen Kumar v. G.Sudha Rani and 2 Others

Telangana HC5 Jul 2023CRLRC/2241/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance. The Court held that the trial court correctly found the marriage valid and the child legitimate, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance order of Rs. 2,000 per month to the first respondent and Rs. 1,000 per month to the second respondent was upheld.

G.Naveen Kumar Vs G.Sudha Rani and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32se ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2241 0F 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the orders_dated. 16-8-201 1 passed in MC.No.36/2009 on the fite of iie corrtlt ii.," Judge Family court, at Secunderabad

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Naveen Service, H.No.10-5-492t2511. Tukaramgate,^Kumar, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad^{SioG.Raiveeraiah}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

G.Sudha Rani, Wo G.Naveen Kumar, aged 2g years, Occ:Housewife

¶13

Baby- G.Siri, D/o G.Naveen Kumar, aged 2 years,Occ: Nil,

¶14

Both are R/o H.NO.10_5-39g/A, Tukaramgate, North Lalaguda Secunderabad

¶15

The State of Ap., Rep.by its public prosecutor, High court of Ap. Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

CRLRC MP, NO : 3369 OF 2011

¶18

Petition under Section .15-1 .CpC^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit fired in support ot tne peiiti#, ir,u Higr' court may be preased ta stay operation of the orders dateo._'10-g-irir-i^-passeo by the Hon,bre Judoe Familv court, at secunderabao, in l',tc.*o.soiioo5, tiriir'" a1.p"."r'"i';; i;H""

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. H SUDHAKARA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2: BHAGAIAH S

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.224L OF 2011

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Thc present criminal revision case is filed under Section lJ97 and 40 I ol Cr.P.C. aggrieved bv the order dated lb.OB.201 1 passed bv the learned Judge, Famil1, Court, Secunderabad in MC No.36 of 2009 u'herein and whereby the petitioner herein u,as directed to pay an amount ol Rs.2,oOO/ per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent N os. I and 2 herein respeci-ively :orvards monthly maintenance from the date of petition.

¶26

Sri H.Sudhakar Rao, Icarned counsel for the petitioner submitted lhat t1-rc trial Court failed to appreciate r_he contention of the pctitioner tl-rat the 1., respondent has, withoLlt taking divorce from her 1"1 hr-rsband, married tl're petitioner under the guise of customarv divorce therefore. the marriage between the petitioner ard the 1"t respondent is nuli and void. In such circumstances, the petitioner herein has no obligation to pay maintenance to the 1"r respondent. The further contention of the petitiont-'r is that the I "t respondent rvas carrying pregnancy even by the date of marriage w'ith him and hence petitioner cannot be termed as father of the 2ntr respondent.

¶27

l'age 2 ofJ

¶28

As seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has gone into the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents herein. The evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by PWs.2 to 4 or-r the aspect of taking customery divorce by the I "t respondent herein from her previous husband before the caste clders. The petitioner herein has not chosen to contradict the same by cross-examining PWs. I to 4 on this aspect. Moreover, the OP No.429 of 2009 field by the petitioner her-ein for annulment of the marriage was dismissed. Therefore, it has to be presumcd that the marriage betrveen the petitioner and the lst respondent is valid.

¶29

From a perusal of the impugned order it is clear that though the marriage between the petitioner and the l "t respondent was consummated aJter fifteen days of the marriage axd though the 1"r respondent left the company of the petitioner for some time, again there is reunion of the family with the intervention of the police moreover, the petitioner himself joined his wife in the hospital for delivery. Unless a contra evidence is adduced, it has to be undoubtedly presumed that the 2"d respondent is born to the 1"r respondent through the petitioner.

¶30

Insofer' as the income of the petitioner is concern, the petitioner being a Railway employee and getting a salar5r of

I'].r,r f olf

l I I I

Rs.13,0OO/ per monlh and is ur,d('r obligation to maitrtain his r'r,i fe and child. As seen liom the reco rd, the l"t respondent being tl-re lcgally $'cdded of the petitioner aI)d the 2"d respondent being^the tegitimate child ol the petitioner ar(r unable^to maintair^themselves and they have no source of^incomelbr their^livilihoodl.

¶36

The trial Court has^gone into^each and^{every aspect of the} matter meticulously and^gave a^{reasonedorder,whlchdoes not} warrant any interferelrce ol^{thrs Courtunder Section 397 of Cr.P.C.}

¶37

in the result, this Criminal Revision^{Petition is dismissed'} Interlocutory applications, if anl'^{pendingin this Crimina-l Revision} Case, shall also dismissed.

¶38

Sd/. M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( 11)

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Family Court Judge at Secunderabad (With Records if any)

¶42

The Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶43

J One CC to SRl. H SUDHAKARA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI 4 One CC to SRl. BHAGATAH S, Advocate [OpUC]

¶44

5 Two CD Copies

fmq.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0510712023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2241 o12011

,I 1r1 srAr€
t
r
()
() 10 AUB 2$
'. ,1
:..,:.
:

¶52

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶53

?rr1(, >6\aw

G.Naveen Kumar v. G.Sudha Rani and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Naveen Kumar v. G.Sudha Rani and 2 Others

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

Dr.Nagamalla Srinivas, Karimnagar Dt., Vs Dasari Kamalakar, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.

Mrs.Aliya Shahzad Vs Sri Hemanth Kumar and Another

Chennadi Rama Rao, Karimnagar Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and 5 Othrs

Mir Qamar Hasan Razvi, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B. Dayanand Babu, Sec-Bad and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.