Dismissed

Polle Veeresh v. Smt.Polle Usharani and 4 Others

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023CRLRC/2296/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging orders in a domestic violence case. The lower courts had reduced the to petitioner from Rs.5,000 to Rs.4,000 per month. The Court held the reduced amount was appropriate and declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; lower court orders confirming reduction of maintenance and granting protection/accommodation affirmed.

Polle Veeresh Vs Smt.Polle Usharani and 4 Others — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

I\4ONDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2296^{OF 2013}

¶6

Revision filed under Section 397 and^{401 of Crl.P.C.,aggrieved by the impugned} order dt.14-08-2013,^passed in Crl.A.No.32l2O13 on^{the file of the Family Court} -cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar^{in dismissing the} Appeal and in Modifying the order dt22.03.2o13,^{in DVC No.10/2012,on the file} of the Judicial Magistrate of First^{Class, Mahabubnagar,only to the extent of} reducing the maintence amount of Rs.5000/-^{to Rs.4,0001 per month.}

¶7

Between

¶8

POLLE VEERESH, S/o Anjaiah occ^{Private ServiceFI/o H.No.7-32} Sandhinagar^{Kalwakurthy Mahabubnagar District}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT.POLLE USHARANI, W/o Veeresh occ Housewife^{R/o H.No1-8-98/10} Tirmal Devunigutta Mahabubnagar

¶12

The Govt of AP.,, Rep by its Public Prosecutor^{HighCourt of AP.,Hyderabad}

¶13

Polle Santhosa, W/o Anjaiah occ^{HouseholdRl/oH.No.7-32 Gandhinagar} Kalwakurthy Mahabubnagar District

¶14

Setty Sobharani, Wo Baswaraj occ^{HouseholdFi"/o H.No.7-32 Gandhinagar} Kalwakurthy Mahabubnagar District

¶15

Setty Baswaraj, S/o Eshwaraiah occ^{AgricultureFi,/oH.No.7-32 Gandhinagar} Kalwakurthy Mahabubnagar District

¶16

Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are not necessary^{parties to this CRL RC}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013^(CRLRCMP. NO^{: 3474 OF 2O131}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} stay of all further^proceedings in^{pursuant to the impugned.order in DVC}

¶20

No.10/2012dt 22.O3.2013,on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar as Confirmed in Crl.A. No.3212013 by order dt.14 08.2013, on the file of the Family Court -cum- District and Session Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI SIVA KUMAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. DAMODAR REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUCIOPAL

¶26

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2296 OF 2013

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to impugned order dated 14.08.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.32 of 20 13 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-Additional District arrd Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in dismissing the appeal and in modifying the order dated 22.03.2013 in D.V.C.No.10 of 2Ol2 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar only to the extent of reducing the maintenance arnount of Rs.5,0OO/- to Rs.4,000/- per month and in confirming the remaining order as it is and the same may be set aside.

¶29

Heard Mr. Siva Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistalt Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar vide order dated 22.03.2013 in D.V.C.No. lO of 2Ol2 granted protection orillei to responEeiit No. t herein-wife restraining the petitioner

¶31

)

¶32

and respondent Nos.3 to 5 from committing domestic violence against the respondent No.1 and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.S,OOO/- payable by petitioner from the date of petition. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/per month from the date of this order towards alternative accommodation to the respondent No.1, and also enhanced rent from time to time. However, the Court below dismissed the relief in respect of compensation. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 preferred Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2013 on the hle of learned Judge Family Court-cum-Additional District arid Sessions Judge, at Mahabubnagar. The hrst Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.08.2013 dismissed the appeal without costs, by modifying and reducing the monthly maintenance to Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.5,O0O/- payable by husband. Therefore, the present Revisron.

¶33

A perusal of the record shows that this Revision pertains to the year, 2013 and this Court vide order dated 29. ll.2OI3 granted stay of all further proceedings, for a period of six weeks on a condition that the petitioner shall pay m ainten ance (4) Rs.2,OOO/- per month and a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month

¶34

¶35

towards alternative accommodation to respondent No. 1 . The same was extended from time to time

¶36

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record and after hearing the submissions made by both the learned counser' this court is of the view that the maintenance awarded to respondent No. 1 is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the peopre have escarated. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision as the same is devoid of merits.

¶37

6 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

Sd/-K.SAILESHI DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CID

¶40

SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To,

¶42

'1. The Family Court -cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabu bnagar. CLidr rtrad.l,,;+".-A)

¶43

The Court of Judiciat Magistrate o? First Class, Arlahabubnagar. 3. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad

¶44

4 One CC to SRI. M. DATMODAR REDDy Advocate [OpUC] 5 Two CD Copies

pcsd

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010712023

ORDER ) CRLRC.N0.2296 of 2013

¶53

€, STATG ,o
a
116 stP u[3
,J
,
l- oEst A1
.::

¶54

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION^CASE (g{'$ X),---=(rde

Polle Veeresh v. Smt.Polle Usharani and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polle Veeresh v. Smt.Polle Usharani and 4 Others

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

Smt K.Adilakshmi and Another Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Smt. Mangala Gouri Shankar Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Mohd. Kaleemuddin, Jidda, K.S.A. and Ano Vs Abdul Aziz Khan, Hyd and 2 Othrs

Smt. Paradapallyl Deepika, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Daljith Singh Vs the State of Telangana and Another

P.Srinivas Vs Yadamma and 2 Others