Dismissed

Ch.Guruswamy , Peter , Kishore, Hyd., v. Ch.Padmini, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC3 Aug 2023CRLRC/2266/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision under Section 401 CrPC against a Family Court maintenance award was dismissed. The High Court refused to interfere, stating that challenging a meagre award due to rising living costs was not permissible and the petition lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed; the order of the Family Court is not interfered with.

Ch.Guruswamy , Peter , Kishore, Hyd., Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF^AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:^{2266 OF 2014}

¶6

Criminal Revision Case Under Section^{401 of Cr.P.Cagainst the Award} made in M.C.No.32 of 2010 dated^{27.06.2014on the file of the Court of the} Judge, Family Court at Ranga Reddy^Disrict.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch.Guruswamy @ Peter @ Kishore,^{S/o Ch. Anjaneyulu. Naidu, Occ Worklnspector} Division-9, Y6u6ufguda^{-Section, Office} of^{MunicipalCorporation,GHMC,} Khairatabad' Hvderabad

¶9

...'ET.roNER/RES'.NDENT AND

¶10

1 Ch.Padmini, Wio Ch. Guruswamy @^Peter @^{Kishore, Occ Housewife,C/o-} K-V.Ramadas, # 26-4911, Chanakyapuri,^{Sainikpuri, lvlalkajgiri Mandal, Ranga} Reddy District.

¶11

2 The State of Telangana,,^{Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court,} Hvderabad

¶12

...RES'.NDENTS/'ET.,.NER

¶13

CRL.R.C .M.P. NO: 3749 OF 2014

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe} pleased to suspend the Award daled 27.06.2014 in^{M.C.No.32of 2010 on the file} of the Court of the Judge, Family^{Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict.}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRl. KRISHNAMURTHYDEVARAKONDA}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.l^{: SRI G. RAVI CHANDRAN}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 : M/s VIZARATH ALI}

¶18

ASST.PUBLIC^PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2266 of 20L4

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is hted by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the Award in lM.C.No.32 of 20 lO, dated 27.06.2014 passed b-v the learnecl Judge, Family Court at Ranga Reddy District.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned counsel appearing for resp,ondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Proseclrtor alrpearing for respondent No.2_ State.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the efforts made to findout respondent No.1 has gone in vain. Therefore seeks to determine the matter on merits.

¶26

4 Learned counsel appearing titr respondent No.l also submits that even the efforts nrade by him to reach respondent No.1 also failed. Hence, also seeks to determine the matter on merits.

¶27

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that^{marriage between} respondent No.1 herein and petitioner herein^was solemnized on 17 .11.1999. The^{petitionercheated} respondent No.l by saying that his first^{wife died in an} accident and took dowry of^{Rs.2,OO,O0O/- and other} articles from the parents of respondent^{No. I .} The petitioner never treated respondent No.l as his^wife, treated her as a maid servant. The^{petitioner has illicit} relation with another lady and^{due to the same, behaved} cruelly with respondent No.l. In^{the year 2003,the mother} of the petitioner was sick, the^{petitioner had taken all the} help from respondent No.1 and^{her parents,but ill treated} and beat her brutally. The^{parents of respondentNo.l} compromised the issues between^{thepetitionerand} respondent No.1 and sent her^{to petitioner's house. The} petitioner again tortured respondent^No. I^{to sign on white} paper but she refused. In view of^{the said harassment,} respondent No.l left to^{her parent'shouse.The petitioner} neglected respondent^{No.l, as she is a household lady,} living with her^{parentsand she has no meansto maintain} herself. Therefore,^{respondentNo.1 filed M.C.No'32of}

2010 seelcing maintenance of Rs. 10,OOO/- per month and costs of Rs.5,0OO/-. The learnerl Judge, Family Court at Ranga Reddy District allovved the petition by awarding maintenance of a sum of Rs.g,OOO/- per month from the date of the petition, on or before lOrn of every month. The respondent is given libert_y to pay the arrears of the maintenance in four equal instalrrrents and also directed to pay Rs.5,0O0/-.tou'ards costs. Ag,grieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is fled.

¶33

This Court upon careful cor-rsideration of the entire material on rccord and after hearing the submissions made by both the learned counsel, is; of the view that the Revision pertains to the year 2Ol4 and the maintenance awarded b,v the Court belo,*, is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people has been escalated. He:rce, this Court does not Iind any reason to interfere u.ith the order passed by the Court belou,. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Rerrision Case as the same is devoid of merits.

i I !

I I

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶39

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶40

closed

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS OEPUHJGISTRAR

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

1 The Judge, Family Court, at Ranga Reddy District 2 One CC to Sri Krishna Murthy Devarakonda , Advocate (OPUC) 3 One CC to Sri G.Ravi Chandran, Advocate (OPUC) 4 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT) 5. Two CD Copies ks

NJB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310812023

11 $il TS
<br>'ii<J'.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

CRL.R.C. N 0.2266 of 201 4

¶53

Dismissing the Crl.R.C.

Ch.Guruswamy , Peter , Kishore, Hyd., v. Ch.Padmini, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Guruswamy , Peter , Kishore, Hyd., v. Ch.Padmini, R.R.Dt 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

Gottam Prathap, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Chemiti Venkata , Prasad, Hyd Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Mededhi Ravi Vs Medidi Rajni and 2 Others

Chandapangu Ravi, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Chandapangu Rajini, Nalgonda Dist. and Ano

Suvarna Rajanna, Karimnagar Dt and 2 Otrs., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Rajkumar Goud, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.