Dismissed

Mr. P.Hanumanthu, v. Smt. P.Anuraradha , Chandrakala and Another

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023CRLRC/2311/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition challenging a maintenance order granted by the Family Court. The revisioner failed to substantiate his claims of excess maintenance or changed financial circumstances. The bench found no merit and confirmed the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Order of the trial Court; miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

Mr. P.Hanumanthu, Vs Smt. P.Anuraradha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF I,4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2311 OF 2010

¶7

Criminal Revision case under Section 397 of Cr.P.C against the Order daled 21 .10.2010 in M.C No. 102 of 201 0 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court RR.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶8

Preferred against lhe Order passed in M.C.No.11 of 2006 dated 14lOgl2OO7 on the file of the Court of the lX Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Kukatpally at Miyapur.

¶9

Between

¶10

Mr.P.Hanumanthu, S/o- Late P. Anjanayyah, aged about 39 years, Occ: Jr. Telecom Officer, Rt/o. HCU, Telephone Exchange, Quarters, Qtr No. C-5, Opp:SBl RT , Near HCU Bus Depot, Serilingampally, RR.Dishict

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶12

ANO

¶13

1 . Smt.P.Anuraradha @ Chandrakala, aged about 28 Years, Wo. P.Hanunmanthu House Hold, Rl/o. Qtr No.2304, lV Batch BHEL, MtG Serilingampaly,

¶14

Master Venkata Chiranjeevi, S/o. P.Hanumanthu, one year, Minor represented through his natural Guardian/ Mother, Smt. P.Anuradha, PJo. Quartr, No. 2304, lV batch BHEL, MIG , Serilingampally, RR.District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶16

CRLRCMP. NO: 3470 OF 2010

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dt.21.10.2010 in MC No. 102 ot 2O10 on the file of the Family Court, R.R.District, at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the CRLRC.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SANKARAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEAREb The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

I t

¶20

I I

¶21

THE H,)I{OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE S|UDHA cl&l []xA! f,EYIgaU A4S= No.2311 of :r01o

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

Tlris C-rrninal Re'risron Case is filed allainsl t re Ordr:r of the trial CorL [ ]ated 21 iA.2Ot 0 in M.C.No.1{)2 ol 2(. 1O

¶24

Tltc lir it rf sponcl(tnl/',r'ifc along u'ith tLis so: ag( d atrout one vear lile J a petition in M.C.No.lO2 of 2Ol( .rgainst the petitionr:r/ hr slrand belbre the trial Court frrr n air tenance under Sicc:.io r 1115 of (lr. P.C. Thc trial Court co rs;icle ring the entire e'..idr:n e o;t recor<1 granted Rs.a,O0U/. p(lr t.t,)ltth to the first respc,r.r,:e tt/u,ile ancl Rs.2,0OO/- pe . to l1e second respondentTs trr from rhe date ol filing the petition. ,r.qgrievecl by the saic Orrj .:r, r.he pclitioner/husbar.rcl pre e rr.cd he present CriminaL Rr-'r,: sir>n Casc.

¶25

The :e it.oner/husband mainly contended ,rrat amount grantcd bv t[ e trial Colrrt is excessive and he irls ) ;ta _ed that IX-Metrc po it, n I\4agistratc originally grante,j rna r-l:enance o[ Rs.3,00C,/- pr r month b.., Order. dated 14.09.2,007 irr M.rl.No.11 of 2006. Plrrr rs il of the Orclcr shows that thc srL ,I Crder in M.C.No. I )l .l()O() .,,,zrs scl asiclc and thc mafter lv rs. rcrnanded back to tl:c: tr iaL Cor_r t, :rs sucl-r t-lti conterrtr( rr regarding granting of an o _rnt by thc trial Court cannol bc acc:nted.

¶26

¶27

4, He also stated that he was working as an Engrneer and drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and his mother is depending upon him, but he stated all these facts even before the trial Court and the trial Court considering all these factors granted maintenance. He also stated that respondents are residing in their own house worth about Rs.70,00,O00 /- arld first respondent/wife is having a share in the said property. But, the petitioner/ husband has not filed any document to support his version. In spite of granting several opportunities neither petitioner nor his Counsel nrade any representation. The matter is pending before this Court from the year 2010 onwards. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶28

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirmirrg the Order of the trial Court in M.C.No.102 of 2010 dated 21.1O.2O10.

¶29

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶30

closed.

¶31

SD/. CH.VENKATESWARLU ] DEPUTY REGIPTRAR il u SECTION OFFICER

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

To, 1. The Judge Family Court Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar Hyderabad (with records)

¶34

The lX Metropolitan Maoislrate Cyberabad Kukatpally at Miyaspur. 3. one CC to SRt K.SANIGRAIAH, Advocale.toptjb'i^{'' -}

¶35

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOiI, Hig'h Court for the State of _^{Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]} 5. Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD Copies

¶36

Two CD CopiesTwo CD CopiesCD Copies

(b(--

HIGH COU R

DATED:241C:r12023

ORDER

'i aL =:-. .:<br>ta s
| '_'.1
)
ii
\-
li .: (-, (
1")
,\Iq, \ ci
'1. .,:, ' .2/
:
-:5::-

¶43

CRLRC.No,2,311 of 2010

¶44

DISMlSSll,l(; THE CRLRC WITHOUT COtiTS;

¶45

B
L9
q 6 W

Mr. P.Hanumanthu, v. Smt. P.Anuraradha , Chandrakala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. P.Hanumanthu, v. Smt. P.Anuraradha , Chandrakala and Another

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

Pallikonda Anand Vs Smt. Battu Pallikonda Nikhitha

Yedamakanti Laxma Reddy Vs The Nizam Sugars Limited (Nsl)

Mr. Vasa Tulasidhar, Habsiguda, Hyderabad Vs State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Smt. Sharada Bai Vs T.Kishan Singh and the State of A.P.

Shafath Ali Khan and 3 Others Vs Noorunnisa Begum and Ano

Sudula Mallesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh