In this Criminal Revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to the maintenance order awarded to a deserted wife and her two minor children. The Court held that the quantum awarded was reasonable and there was no scope for interference.
Maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month per person was upheld; criminal revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWELFTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINALREVIS ION CASENO: 2458 OF2015
Revision filed under Si:ction397 and 401of CrPC aggrievedby the Order dated 13-02-2013 made inM.C.No.258 0f 2008 0n the file of the Additional Metropolitan sessions Judgefor the Trial of )HCBBCcum AdditionalFamily Court cum XXIII AdditionalChief Judge,Hyderabad.
Between:
(Petitioner No.2 & 3 are beingminor representedby the 1"t Petitioner,their natural mother)
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
I.A. NO:2 OF20L5(CRLRCMP.NO:3780 OF2015)
Petition under section151CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the High Courtmay be pleasedto direct the respondentto pay sum of Rs.50,000/-towards interim measure.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. AANANDA RAO
Counsel for the ResPondentNo.1: SMT PVEENA
Counsel for the RespondentNo.2': SRI VIZARAT ALI, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
,):
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2458 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners under : Sections 397 arrd 4Ol of Cfiminal Procedure Code (for short,Cr.p.C.) aggrieved by the order dated 73.O2.2O13 passed in MC No.258 of 2008 on the frle of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trail of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Adclit.ional Chief Judge, Hyderabad wherein a monthly maintenancc of Rs.2,t)OO/- per month each to the petitio;rer Nos. I to 3, in total Es 6,q0q/-.Was awarded directirrg tie lstrespondent to pay the same from the date of order i.e- from 13.02.2013 to be paid on or before 1Orh of everlr calendal month.
'2. I{earcl Sri V izarat Ali, learned Assistant Putrlic Prosecutor, representing learnet-l Public Prosccritor for State/ respondent No.2. None appeared for Sri A.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.P.Veena, Iearned counsel for the respondent No.1. Perused the record. On earlier occasions i.e. on 24.O7.2023, 31.O7.2O3 and on O5.O9.2O23 also there was no representation for the petitioners and unofhcial respondent. Thisi matter pertains to the year 2015. Therefore, this Court ib inclineiJ to.proceed witlr lhe .rnattei ori.rheri'ts of the case as Fer the decision o[ the Hon'ble Apex Courtjn '(Bqni, Si4gh qnd
Pagc 2 ol5
others Vs. state of uttarPradeshl", wherein it was categorically held that the High Courtcannot dismissany appeal for non-prosecution si.mpliciter withoutexamining the merits.
' 1199614 Supremc CourtCases 720
Page 3 ofs
..u, .7
Exs.Pl to P4 has awarded the maintenance to the petitioners as
stated supra.
4 Aggrieved by_ the said lindings, the petitioners filed the present criminal ievision case mainly contending that the maintenarce awarded by the Court below is very meagre in view of the present escalating cost of living and day to day increasing needs of the l"t petitioner as she has to bear the educational expenditure of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 without having any financial source. on the other hand, learned Assistant public prosecutor contended that the orders of the Court below are well reasoned and there is no necessity for interference of this Court.
Page,l ol5
the complaints filed by the lst petitioner one a-fter another and also pendency of crime No.234 of 2OO9 registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, he lost his job. Further, the l"t respondent filed OP No.671 of 2010 seeking custody of his children, rvhicl-r was dismissed and zrppeal against the said findings is pending before this Court. It is also the contention of the l"t respondent that he deposited Mehar and maintenance for Iddat period through DD No.845266 dated 17.09.1999 for an anount of Rs.1B,50O/-. There is no evidence on record to prove the alleged harassment meted out to the l"t petitioner either by the 1"t respondent or his parents.
I
{7
Pace 5 of5
no scope or necessity for this Court to interfere with the same. The grounds urged by the petitioners have no force warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, this petition is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
sd/- M RAMANAKRISHN A DEPUTY REGIST R
//rRUEcoYY/l
SECTION FFICER
To,
CHG ADK s/
HIGH COURT
DATED:IU09/2023
ORDER
CRLRC.Nu.2458 of 2015
1rE SrAi€ F
<
e)r) tg N[\ ztn ATa
I
s
I OESPA rC
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED
r
2.o\ ${
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- awarded by the Court below to the deserted wife and minor children is reasonable considering the husband's financial capacity and desertion.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded in a criminal revision filed by a deserted wife alleging escalation in cost of living.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bomura Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶27
Bomura Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Asra Kamal
Aqsa Shahab
Syed Wahabuddin
Syed Shahabuddin
The State of Telangana
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
