Partly allowed

K.Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Sept 2023CRLRC/2338/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana partly allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the maintenance quantum awarded by the Family Court. The Court modified the maintenance amount to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,500 per month for the wife and daughter respectively, considering the accused's wealth and standard of living.

What did the court decide?

Monthly maintenance for K. Padmavathi and K. Aishwarya Laxmi enhanced to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 7,500 per month respectively.

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I ! I I I I I i !

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2338 OF 2018

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by orders dated 26-06-2018 passed in M.C.No. 43 of 2014 on the file of Judge Family Court, Secunderabad Between:

¶8

K.Padmavathi, Occ. Pvt. service, R/o. 1.1-3-362/7, Srinivasa Nagar ,^{Warasiguda, Secunderabad,500061.}

¶9

K.Aishwarya Laxmi, Occ. Student, R/o. 11-3-362t7, Srinivasa Nagar, Warasiguda Secunderabad,500061.

¶10

...CRIMINAL REV. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

K.E.Srinvasa Raju, Occ. Teacher R/o. Pent House, Flat No. 601 , H.No. 11-3-359/ 1 , Nomula Sapthagiri Towers, Srinivas Nagar, Warasiguda, Secunderabad-500061 .

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶16

Petition under Section 482 CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to grant the temporary maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for both 1st petitioner wife and 2nd petitioner unmarried daughter, pending disposal of the main Revision.

¶17

Counse! for the Petitioner(s): SRl. KATRAPATI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent no.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI} CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE N^{0.2338 0F 2018} ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case has been^{filed underSections} 397 and 401 of C-ode of^{Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short} "G.P.C") challenging the order dated 26.06.2018 in MCNo.43 of 2Ol4 on the file of the^FamilyC-oun Judge,^{Secunderabad.}

¶20

The relevant iacts in brief are that the^revision Petitioners who are u,ife and unmanied daughter of the^{respondent No.2} under Section 125 of Code^{o[ C-riminalProcedure,1973 (for shon} "G.P.C") filed an application seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.2qOOO/- each. The learned Family^C-ourt Judge^{on considering} the materials filed bythe revision^{petitioners and respondent No.2} awarded Rs.2,OOO/- and Rs.5,000/-^{per month resPectively.} Aggrieved by the awarded quantum of^{maintenance, the} Present revision has been filed.

¶21

In spite of listing ttre^{matter underthe caption'for orden',} the revision petitioners did not choose to^{aPPear. I have heard} leamed counsel for respondent No.2.

¶22

¶23

\TR..I crlrc ll l8 20 tti

¶24

The relationship between the panies is nor in dispute. Funher, the conclusion as ro liabiliry of respondent No.2 to pay maintenance remained unchallenged, this aspect attained finality.

¶25

kamed counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the leamed Family Court had rightly considered the aspects and passed the impugned order. It is further contended that respondent had renounced the world and left the properties and he has no means of income. Funhermore, peririoner No.l is receiving mainrenance of Rs.jO0O/- in DVC proceedings and the petitioner No.2 got a govemment job, as such, quanrum granted bythe trial C-ourt is reasonable.

¶26

The leamed Family Coun after going through entire material placed by rhe pedtioners as well as respondent had concluded that the conrenrion of renouncing the worldly affairs are false and he is leading a luxurious life and the immovable propenies are evident that respondent No.2 is a wealthy person.

¶27

Fhving regarid to this facrual position and in absence of material showing income of the peririonen and rhe settled

¶28

N'I-It,J crlrc 2318 2018

¶29

¶30

proposition that the quantum of maintenance^{amountshall be in} pariry with the living standard of^{the person who has to pay} maintenance and the monetary^{relief grantedin DVC proceedings} and the cost of living, this Coun^{is o[ the considered opinion that,} in the facts and circumstances of the case^{awarding Rs.5,000/-} and Rs. 7,500/ - per month towards^{maintenanceof the petitioner} Nos.1 and 2 respectively would meet the^{ends of jusdce.} Accordingly, awarded monthly maintenance^{amount is modified.}

¶31

In the result, the C-riminal^{RevisionCese is panly allowed.}

¶32

As a sequel, rniscellaneous petitions,^{pendingif any, shall}

¶33

stand closed.

¶34

SD/. CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGIS^RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judge Family^{Court, Secunderabad}

¶39

One CCio SRI^{KATRAPATISATYANARAYANAAdvocate} loPUCl

¶40

One CC to SRI^{GUMMALLA BIIASKERREDDY Advocate}

¶41

[oPUC]

¶42

+. iwo CCs to^{the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)' High Courtfor the} state of Telangana^{at Hyderabad.} [OPUC]

¶43

Two CD CoPies AA

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110912023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2338 of 2018

¶49

1$5 STAI €
(
,^
q T
o 0 i riB 2024
a
* *
Dg h )

¶50

THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE 1S PARTLY ALLOWED

¶51

@c'.J So

¶52

ao^</sup>

K.Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Padmavathi v. The State of Telangana

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

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig Vs Md. Nazimunnisa

Srikanth Kumar Jilla Vs The State of Telangana

Rajender Yadav Vs Smt Ayesha Fathima

Mohd Raheemuddin Vs State of Telangana

Lakamana Maheswari Vs The State of Telangana

Bandela David Sandeep Vs Sheena Mrinalini