Dismissed

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023CRLRC/2523/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision appeal under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging an order granting monthly maintenance. Despite intervening to examine merits due to lack of representation, the court upheld the low quantum as reasonable and devoid of merit for interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed and miscellaneous pending matters stood closed

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2s23 OF 2O't3

¶6

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by th6 order dated. 19-'11-2013, in M.C.No.1. of 2011,on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bollam Ravi, S/o. Narsaiah, Agriculture, Rl/o. Jeevantharaopally^Village, Mulugu Mandal, Warangal District.

¶9

...PETITION ER/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

State of AP, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court^of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶12

Bollam Sravanthi, D/o. Naredla Rajaiah, Housewife,^Rl/o. Venkatapur^Village, Near Government School, Venkatapur Mandal, Warangal^District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013( CRLRCMP. NO: 3950 OF 2013)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay all further proceedings including the execution of the order dated.19-112013, in M-C.No.'1 of 2O11, on the file of the Court of the Judge: Family Court at Warangal.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. A PRABHAKAR RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri V. SRIKANTHA RAO

¶19

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2523 OF 2013

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 19.11.2013 in M.C.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, at Warangal (for short, "the trial Court").

¶24

No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶25

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 19.06.2023 and 02.O8.2023. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in " Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Utter Pradeshl ", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the trial Court vide order dated 19.11.2013 in M.C.No.1 of 2011 granted a sum of Rs.3,OOO/- per month towards maintenance to respondent No.2 '^{(1996) 4 Supremc CourrCases 720}

¶27

tr3 .) ./.

¶28

¶29

from the date of this^{petition and such maintenance amountwas} directed to be deposited^{by the petitioner directly into the S'B'} Alc. of the petitioner on^{or before 10th of every succeeding month} through on-line banking.^{RespondentNo.2 was directedto open} S.B. A/c. in any one of^{the nationalizedbanks and furnish the} details of her account^{within fifteen days for effecting payment by} the petitioner.^{Aggrievedby the same, the present Revision'}

¶30

A perusal of the record^{showsthat this matter pertains to} the year, 2O13 and this^{Court vide orderdated16'12 2013} granted interim stay of^{operationof orderpassedby the trial} Court, on condition^{of the petitioner depositinghalf of the arrears} of maintenance amount^{awarded by the trial Court within four} weeks. The petitioner^{was furtherdirected to continue to pay the} future maintenance at the^{same rate on or before sth of every} succeeding month. Till date,^{there is nothingavailable on record} to show that^{the order passed by this Court is compliedwith'}

¶31

Upon careful consideration^{of the entire materialavailable} on record, this Court^{is of the view that the maintenance granted} to respondent^{No.2 is very meagreand appropriate'Challenging} such meagre^{amount is not permissibleat this stage as the cost} of living standards of the^{people have escalated. Hence, I do not}

¶32

¶33

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the

¶34

Revision as the same is devoid of merits

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

Sd/. M. RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

C,b

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Court of Judge,^{Family Court-cum-lll Additional District& Sessions} Judge, Warangal.

¶43

Two CCs to the^{PublicProsecutor, High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

One CC to SRl. A.^{PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

One CC to SRI V.SRIKANTHA^{RAO Advocate} [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies

pcsd kam^w-

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/08/2023

lt SEP 2[8
1g
{r
-- , "- -1.- .. . ',

¶52

ORDER

¶53

CRLRC.No.2523 ot 2013

¶54

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶55

E4^ ffi-"

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., v. State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaka Vasudeva Rao, Hyd., Vs K.Srinivasa Rao, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

J.Srinivas Vs J.Sridevi

Smt. Padma, Vs State of Telangana

Madipally Amruthamma Vs the Stateof Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar Vs the State of A.P. and 3 Others