Dismissed

T.Swarup Kumar v. Sujatha Devi and 2 Others

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023CRLRC/2584/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Criminal Revision challenging an order awarding maintenance. The Court held that the maintenance awarded was not sufficient due to escalated living standards but found no merit in the challenge to the preservation of such meagre amounts. The Revision was deemed devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed with no order as to relief.

T.Swarup Kumar Vs Sujatha Devi and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,T,HE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2584 OF 2013

¶6

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Crl. P.C.,aggrieved by the Judgment dt.28-11-013, passed in Crl.A.No. 103 of 2011, on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.SWARUP KUMAR, S/O T.G.Selvaraj, aged 36 years, occ Trainee Pastor, presently Residing at Hephzibah Church, Arutla village Manchal Mandal, R.R.District-so1 508.

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.,I/APPELLANT

¶10

AND :

¶11

SUJATHA DEVI, w/o T.Swaroop Kumar, aged 32 years, occ :Staff Nurse, r/o Gowripatnam Post, Devarapally Mandal, W.G.District.

¶12

T . Mary Chandraleela, Wo T.G.Selvaraj , rlo 18-8-278121124, New Rakshapuram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

(Respondent No.2 is not necessary party)

¶15

..RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCMP. NO: 4075 OF 2013)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Crl.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the order passed in D.V.C.NO. 118120'10 dt. 28-1-2011 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, in so far a.s the monthly rent and monthly maintenance is concerned pursuant to^judgment passed in Crl.A.No. 10312011 dt. 2B-1 1-2013, on the file of the V Additional [Vletropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 20 1 4( CRLRCMP. NO: 221 OF 2014

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Crl.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Sourt may be pleased to permit the petitioner herein to amend the main relief and the interim relief as "in so far as the monthly maintenance of Rs.500l to the child is concerned" in the place of in so far as the monthly rent and monthly maintenance in concerned'.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner SRI V.VITHAL Counsel for the Respondents Nos 1 &2 None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.3 ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following :ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.^{V. VENUGOPAL}

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2584^{oF 2013}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Criminal Revision^{Case is filed seeking to set} aside the Judgment^passed in^{Crl.A.No.lO3of 2O11,dated} 28.11.2OL3 on the hle of V Additional^{MetropolitanSessions} Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner as well as the} learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{appearing forthe} respondent-State.

¶27

A perusal of the record shows that the^{Revisionpertains to} the year 2013 ald the learned^{counsel for the petitionerseeksto} set aside the order passed by the Court^{belowstating that, the} petitioner does not have any sufficient means to maintain^his family members.

¶28

This Court upon careful consideration^of the^{entire material} on record ald after hearing the submissions^{made by both the} learned counsel is of the^view that the maintenalce^{awarded by} the Court below is very meagre and^{appropriate. Challenging} such a meagre amount is^{not permissible at this stage as the cost}

¶29

¶30

l. ..e

¶31

of living standards of the people has been escalated. Ifence, this Court does not hnd any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to

¶32

entertain the Revision Case as the same is devoid of merits.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶34

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall star d closed

¶35

Sdi.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII (1b

¶36

SEC-IION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The Court of I Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

¶39

¶40

2 The Court of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

¶41

2 Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^'l-elangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. One CC to SRl. V VITHAL, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

Two CD Copies pcsd .)t-

HIGH COURT

DATED:30/06/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.25B4 of 2013

¶47

irE srnIE qi l<br>Stt NB c,
3c.J 1\ At
I
l
OESPAI

¶48

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶49

1,>

T.Swarup Kumar v. Sujatha Devi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Swarup Kumar v. Sujatha Devi and 2 Others

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

N.Hemalatha , Devapuja Aruna Vs State of a.P., through P.S., Achampet

Saurabh Arora [A.5], Vs The State of Telangana

Varre Sangameshwar Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

G.Subba Rao, Vs State of Telangana

Nalla Santosh Reddy, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Anugu Amrutha, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary