Dismissed

Pandurangan Prabhu, Visakhapatnam v. Anitha Prabhu, R.R. Dist. and 3 Others

Telangana HC24 Jul 2023CRLRC/2580/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a Navy officer to suspend Family Court orders withholding his retirement benefits. The Court held it was not inclined to entertain the revision at that stage, referencing a prior order that such revisions are not maintainable against interlocutory orders.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The proceedings are covered by the order dated 27.04.2022 in Cr1.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022.

Pandurangan Prabhu, Visakhapatnam Vs Anitha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2580 OF 2013

¶6

Criminal Revision Case under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C. against the Order made in CRL. M.P. No. 1432 of 2013 in MC.No. 1 79 ot 2013, dated 2O-12-2Ol 3 on the fi le of the Court of the Family Court Judge, Rangareddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Pandurangan Prabhu, S/o. P.Pandurangan, Age: 37yrs, Occ: lndian Navy (lNS Kalinga), MCERA-||, Service No.193658H, R/o.1-90, Durga Bhavani Nilayam, Ratnagiri House Board Colony, Pothinamailaih Paiam,.. Viskhapatnam-1 2, Olo. The Commnading offic6r, INA Kalinga, Bheemil, Visakhpatnam District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Anitha Prabhu, Wo. Pandurangan Prabhu, Age 36Yrs, Occ: Pvt Employee, R/o. H.No.27-65l212416, Ramabrahma Nagar Krupa Complex, Safilgudi, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Sai Sdwjanya, D/o Panduran san Prabhu, Age: 09Yrs, Occ: Sth Class, Rl/o. H.No.27 -65 1212416, Ramabra hma Nagar Krupa Complex, Safilguda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

3 P.Sampath Dishanth, S/o. Pandurangan Prabhu, Age 06Yrs,Occ: 1st Class, R/o. H.No.27-65l212416, Ramabrahma Nagar Krupa Complex, Safilguda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

The Respondents No:2&3 are minor Rep. by their natural guardian mother i.e., Anitha Prabhu

¶15

The Commanding Officer, INS Kalinga, Bheemilli, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

The Commandant (SSO Admin) Bureau of Sailors, Sion-Trombay Road, Mankhrud, Mumbai.

¶17

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013^(GRLRGMP. NO:4071 0F 2013)

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the award passed in M.c.No.179t2o13 on the file of Family Court, Rangareddy District.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. M.Janardhan Reddy

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Sri Vizarath AIi, Asst. public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-t

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No.258O oF 2013

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to suspend the ex-parte orders of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy passed in Crl.M.p.No.1432 of 2013 in M.C.No.179 of 2O 13 to withhold the retirement benefits of the petitioner without follorving any procedure and against the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of India pending disposal of the Revision.

¶28

Heard Mr. .Janardhana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarhth Ali, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent StaG.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that the Court below vide order dated 30.11.20 13 in M.C.No.179 of 2Ol3 granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 to 3 towards their monthly maintenance from the date of the order directing the petitioner to pay the same to respondent No.1 on or before Srh of every month. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded towards the costs and the

¶30

petitioner was directed to pay the same to petitioner No. 1. / /

¶31

Meanwhile, respontlent Nos.l to 3 filecl Crl.rVi.p.No. i432 of 2013 in M.C.No.l79 of 2013 under Order )LXI Rulc:4.5-,\ &.4(r-B r/'"v Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to direct respondent Nos.4 ancl 5, rvho are the employers of the petitiorrer to q,ithl-rokl the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Ther.elbre , thc Court below vide order dated 20.12.201.3 in Cr1.M.P.No.143'") of 2013 in M.C.No. 179 of 2013 directed respondent No.4 garnishee to withhold the retirement benelits of the petitioner until fur-Lher orders. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.

¶32

A perusa-l of the record shows that the matter pert_ai11s to the year 2013 and this Court vide order datcd :17.04 .202,2 in Crl.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 held that as againsL an interlocutory order, a Revision under Section^'-J97 of Criminal Procedure Clode is not maintainable

¶33

In vier,r, of the above, this Court is not incline:d to entertain the Criminal Revision Casc at this stage, as the proceedings hereunder are covered by the order dated 27.O4.2O22 in Cr1.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 passed by this Court.

¶34

7 . Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disrnissed

,:,

;,I

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

Sd/- CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR qe

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Judge Family^{Court, RangareddyDistrictat L'B'Nagar'(Withrecords)} 2. One CClo Sri. Janardhan^{Reddy PonakaAdvocate [OPUC]'}

¶44

Two CCs to^{Public Prosecutor,HighCourt of Telangana (OUT)'}

¶45

Two CD Copies.

¶46

UP ADK^sjH

¶47

I t

¶48

HIGH COURT DATED:241O712023

¶49

ORDER

¶50

CRLRC.No.2580 ot 2013

¶51

._ ..--.j--: -:: --1,-_-..
,lr,a ':.,
\ 1 t\tl N3

¶52

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED

Pandurangan Prabhu, Visakhapatnam v. Anitha Prabhu, R.R. Dist. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurangan Prabhu, Visakhapatnam v. Anitha Prabhu, R.R. Dist. and 3 Others

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

K.Ravi Kumar Vs K.Peddamma and Another

T. Vijaya Laxmi, R..R Dt. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

M. Yadaiah Goud, R.R. Dist. and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Dokuri Vidya Sagar Reddy Vs the State of A.P. and Another

K.P.Venkateshwar Rao Vs the State of Telangana Rep by Its P.P. and Anr.

T.Narsing Vs T.Sandhya Rani and Another