Dismissed

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., v. Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLRC/2877/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC as infructuous. The court held that the proceedings were covered by a prior order dated 27.04.2022 stating that revision against an interlocutory order is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed as infructuous; parties at liberty to pursue available remedies.

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., Vs Dudem Narsiah… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁹ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

MINAL tstoN c NO: 7 0F 201

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C., aggrieved by the order dated 29-8-2016 in crt.Mp.No. 19612013 in Mc.No. 2l2oo' oi the fite of the court of the Judge, Family court-cum-Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dudem,Rathamma, Wo. Narsaiah Aged 47 years, Occupation Household, R/o_ H. No.3-12-689, Mukarampura, Karim-nagar.^-

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 quqem Narsiah, S/o. Rajaiah aged 49 years, Occupation: TSRTC Driver, (319898) Presenfly Working at Huzura5ad, Oepot, iVo. Clo. HuzuriOaO-^' lJepot, Karimnagar District.

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

The. State.Telangana, rep., by the public prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent NO.l: SRI K BUCHI BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ASSISTANT pUBLtC PROSECUTOR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I Il E! E I I I ;i I

¶21

THE HO IoURABLE SRI JUSTTCE E, V. \TE)NITGOPAL

¶22

CRTM N AL REVISIOII CASE No.28ZZ__gF 1UO16

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Th s Cr rrrinal RevisiorL Case is filed s€eking to set aside the Order dzLted^{'.'.tt.8.2016} in Crl.M.p.No.196 o- 2O13 in M.C.No.2 of 2008 on the Iile ol thc Ie:arned Family r]ourt -<:urrL-Additional District .lttdgr i'.t Karim nergar.

¶25

He;rrci r::rrned colrnsel for the petitiont:r atrd learned Assistanl Pub ir Prosecutor appearing for thr: reslro.-rdont State.

¶26

The brir t' facts of the czrse are that t he Cot.rrt below vide Order dated 2:).8.2016 in Cr.[.M.p.No.l96 of 201\i:in I{.C.No.2 of 2OOA granLe( enhanccmcnt of maintenenc<: ilm,)unt from Rs.2,00O,/- ro trs.7,OO0/ pr:r month to thr petiti,:rner from the date of order. r1,;grieverd b_y rhe same the prer;ent_ lk:vision Case is filed by the rt:titiont_.r praving to grant the e nhar cement of maintenanco i n-tount from Fls.2,OOO/- to Rr;.7,0[,0/_ per month from the <late , I petition, instead of date of order.

¶27

\ \

¶28

Learned )r. unsel frrr the petitioner is prrtsent

¶29

Learned^r.risistant [)ublic prosecntion irr pre.sent rrnd brings to the notir:c <^- this ()or.rrt thar This Court vide Order dated

¶30

¶31

27.04.2Cl22 in Crl.R.C^{(SRl No'3198 of2O22 held that as} against an interlocutory^{order,a Revision under Section 397} of Criminal Procedure^{Code is not maintainable'}

¶32

In view of the^{above, this Court is not inclined to entertain} the Revision at^{this stage, as the proceedings hereunderare} covered by the Order^{dated'27 .O4'2O22 in Crl'R'C (SR) No'3198of} 2O22 passed^{bY this Court'}

¶33

Accordingly, the^{CriminalRevision Case is dismissed as} infructuous. However,^{it isneedlesstomention thatthe} petitioner is at liberty^{to work-outthe remediesas available} under law.

¶34

Miscellaneous^{Petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed'}

¶35

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// =D secirbr.r oFFrcER

¶36

To,

¶37

The Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Karimanagar (With Records if any)

¶38

Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OPUC]

¶39

One CC to SRl. tvl RAM MOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶40

One CC to SRl. K BUCHI BABU Advocate {OPUCI

¶41

Two CD Copies

Pr-t{,

HIGH CoI.lRT DATED:^1110712023

¶46

ORDER

¶47

CRLRC^{Nro.2877of 2016}

¶48

a-..; st ef 6 o ^
II 4.
7o
rs StP lm
.5_ i
\ (,pc

¶49

DISMISSING^{THE CRL.RC}

¶50

AS INF RUCTUOUS

¶51

€h,- I q\Rt)

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., v. Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudem Rathamma, Karimnagar., v. Dudem Narsiah, Karimnagar Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

Smt. Paradapallyl Deepika, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Daljith Singh Vs the State of Telangana and Another

P.Srinivas Vs Yadamma and 2 Others

Sakamuri Venu and Another Vs the State of Telangana

Ch.Prasad Rao Vs Osmania University

Puli Anjaneyulu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.