Dismissed

Roopa Volety and Another v. State of Ap., and Another

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023CRLRC/2436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Revision filed by a wife and minor son to enhance monthly maintenance. The Court held that revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is not appropriate when the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy by filing an application under Section 127(1) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; petitioners are at liberty to pursue remedies under Section 127(1) of CrPC.

Roopa Volety and Another Vs State of Ap., and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE^{FIRST DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL} CRIMINAL^{REVISIO N CASENO: 2435oF 2013}

¶5

Revision filed^{under Section397 & 401 of CrPC aggrievedby the} orderDatedoTloSl2ol3intheMCNo.3T0of2ollonthefileofthe court of the^{Addl.MetropolitanSessions} -

¶6

-Judge^{for the trail of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl'FamilyCourt cum XXlll} Addl.Chief^{Judge, HYderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

ROOPA^{VOLETYWo Sreerama AravindVoletyocc Housewife} RJo H.No.7-1-70lD,^{Daramkaram road Ameerpet Hyderabad}

¶9

Yashvardhan^{volety, S/o Sreerama Aravind volety occ student} Rl/o H.No.7-1-70lD,^{Daramkaram road Ameerpet Hyderabad'} Petitioner No.2^{is being minor is represented by his mother'}

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF^{AP. Rep by its Public Prosecutor Highcourt of AP''} Hyderabad

¶13

Sreerama Arvind^{Volety, S/o Sree Rama Chary Volety occ} Buinsess Partner^{of Shree ArvindAgenciesH No'7-1-70/D} Daramakaram^{road AmeerpetHyderabad}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Gounsel for the Petitioner:SRI.S.DULGENDER^{SINGHFOR SRI V.V.}

¶16

LAXMINARAYANA, SRI. PRAVEEN^{KUMAR DUBEY}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent.l: SRl. VIZARATH ALl,

¶18

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent.2l

¶20

Ms. G SUDHA (No representation)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2436 OF 2013

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking^to enhance the maintenance and to direct the^{respondent to pay} monthly maintenance of Rs.SO,OOO/- to each^{petitionerper} month as prayed in the M.C.No.37O of 2011 on the^{file of the} Court of learned Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge for the} trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional^{FamilyCourt-cum-XXIII} Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶27

Mr. S. Dulgender Singh, learned counsel^representing Mr. V.V. Lakshmi Narayana, learned^{counselfor the petitioners} and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} appearing for the respondent^{State. No representationon behalf} of unoffi cial respondent.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the trial court^{vide order} dated 07.08.2013 in M.C.No.37O of 2011^{granted interim} maintenance of Rs.S,OOO/- to petitioner^No.1 and^{Rs.7,500/- to} petitioner No.2 per month, towards their maintenance^{payable by} respondent No.2 from the date of this order. Petitioner^{No.1 was} directed to intimate her bank account to respondent No.2^to I -

r::':€

enable him to deposit the amount in her bank account Respondent No.2 was further directed to pay the monthly maintenance on or before loth of every calendar month. .A,ggrieved by the same, the Criminal Revision Case is filed Seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order was passed by the trial court, in a mechalical manner without taking into consideration the financial litatus of respondent No.2 and the same is not in connivance^.rith the standard of living of the petitioners. Therefore, seeks to zLliow the Revision.

¶34

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecuto.r would submit that if the petitioners have any grievance they would have filed an application under Section 127 (ll of Cr.P.C. by showing the change of circumstances for enhancing the mairrtenance amount, but not by way of the present Revision. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision,

¶35

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel this Court is not inclined to exercise revisionary jurisdictio n under Sections. 397 ar,d 4O1 of Cr.P.C. when an alternative rr:medy is

¶36

¶37

available under law by filing a separate application under Section 127(ll of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. However, the^petitioners are at liberty to workout the remedies available under law.

¶38

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

¶40

Sd/.I.NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trail of JHCBBC -cum- Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge Hyderabad.

¶45

One CC to SRl. PRAVEEN KUMAR DUBEY Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

One CC to SRl. G SUDHA Advocate [OPUC]

¶47

One CC to SriV.V.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate (OPUC)

¶48

Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG), High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

b. Two CD Copies.

A\q,

HIGH COURT

EWJ

DATED:01/0812023

/a
t"--
1t\ -* ST.\rp
J-
l;
r t 5EP2$8 |:
<br>

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLRG.No.2436 of 2013

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

¶59

P ^^Lt, rx\v[:-=

Roopa Volety and Another v. State of Ap., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopa Volety and Another v. State of Ap., 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

Kothakonda Saritha, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Raghavendra Kothakonda, Hyd and Ano

Smt. Savithri, Vs Satyanarayana Thakre

M/S V.S.N. Plastics, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Kolipaka Raju, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

N.Rajender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., Vs Catari Subrahmanyam, Hyd. and Anr, Rep Pp.