Dismissed

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., v. Sajida Kauser, Hyd and 4 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC7 Aug 2023CRLRC/2891/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision filed by a husband challenging maintenance grants of 200 rupees per head to his three minor children was dismissed. The Court held the amount was appropriate given the year 2015 standards and escalating costs, finding no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the impugned orders confirming the maintenance award were upheld.

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., Vs Sajida Kauser, Hyd and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2891 OF 2015

¶7

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC aggrieved by the Order daled 0111012015 in D.V.C No.1/20'13 on the file of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Erramanzil and dismissal of Appeal in Crl.Appeal No.499/20'15 dated 01/10/2015 before the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd.Raheem, S/o. Mohd. Ghouse,aged 49 yrs, Government Servant, Rl/o. H No. 9-8-109/4Al5, Saleh Nagar, Chota Bazar, Golconda Fort, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SAJIDA KAUSER, Wo. Shaik Karra, Occ Maid Servant, PJo. 18-1 1- 40lN1l14lA, Jamilbanda, Barkas - Hyderabad.

¶13

Farhanaaz, D/o. Mohd Raheem, Occ Student, No. 18-11-4OtN1l14tA, Jamilbanda, Barkas - Hyderabad.

¶14

Afreen Anjum, D/o. Mohd Raheem, Occ Student, No. 18-11-40lNll14lA, Jamilbanda, Barkas - Hyderabad.

¶15

Mohd. Rasel, S/o. Mohd Raheem, Occ Student, No. 18-11-4OlN1l14lA, Jamilbanda, Barkas - Hyderabad.

¶16

The State of Telangana,, Rep by The Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana and For the State of A.P.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(CRLRCMP. NO:4413 OF 2015)

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be.pleased to suspend the operation of the orders of the both the courts below in DVC 1/2013 dated 30/05/2015 of 3rd Metropolitan Magistrate at Erramanzil at Hyderabad and Criminal Appeal 499/20'15 dated 0111012015 of 51 h Additional Metropolitan

¶20

¶21

Sessions Judge (llahila court) at Hyderabad, in tf e intor€,st of Justice as otherwise Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and harrlship zrnrJ pass such other order as the honor rble court deems fit and^proper in the c rcum:)tances of the case.

¶22

Counsel for the Pet itioner : SRl. SHAFATH AHMED Kl- AN

¶23

Counsel for the Rer;pondent NO.1 TO 4 : None appear{)d

¶24

Counsel for the Re:;pondent NO. 5 : SRl. VIZARATH Al-1,

¶25

ASSISTANT PUBLIC PR()SiECUTOR

¶26

The Court made thr following: ORDER

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2891 OF 2015

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Erramanzil (for short, "the trial court") in D.V.C.No. I of 2013 dated 30.05.2015 and dismissal of appeal in Crl.Appeal No.499 of 2015 dated 01.10.2015 before the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad (for short, "the appellate court").

¶30

M/s. Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned coulsei for the petitioner and Mr. Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent No.l-wife was solemnized on 14.10.1994 at Masab Tank, Hyderabad. They were blessed with two daughters and one son. Respondent No.l proposed qula divorce for which the petitioner accepted. Thereafter, at the advice of parents and well-wishers she married an old aged person. Respondent No.1 filed D.V.C.No.O1 of 2013 before the

¶32

alternate trial Court seeking maintenance, rent or

¶33

¶34

accommodatior , compensation and protecl ion^,trCer'. The trial Court vide orrler dated 30.05.2015 in D.V.C.N,t.O1 of 2013 grarrted 2Ooh ez ch of the salary of petitioner to his three children as maintenanct:. The Accounts Officer, Drarving and Disbursing Officer, Raj Bhav:rn, Hyderabad u,as directed to attach 6O% of the salary of petitio:rer from the date of order anc deposit the same in the account of respondent No.1 who is the natural guardian of respondent Nori.12 to 4 on or before lo'h of t:very month. Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide bank accr,unt number of any nationalize I bank to the Accounts OlEcer, Drawing and Disbursing Offi,:er, Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad. AgSriev,:d by the same, the petit oner preferred an appeal vLz.,^{()rl.A.No.499} of 2Ol5 and the sarne <sup>ras dismissed vid--^ju151mt:nt dated 01.10.2015 conf rming the order dated 3O.05.2015 ie t).V.C.No.1 of 2013. Hence, he present Re'rision.

¶35

4 . l,earned cc unsel for the petitioner worrld srrtrmjt that he was placed und --r suspension due to false alleg;:.tion s levelled against him and the maintenance amount gr:rnted is exorbitalt. Therefore, seeks :o allow the Revision.

¶36

Per contra learned Assistalt Public Prose(:ut,)r would sirbmit that thr: rhaintenance amount gra-nted is fair arrd

¶37

¶38

reasonable ald interference from this court is unwarranted. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Revision.

¶39

A perusal of the record shows that the matter pertains to the year, 2015. Upon careful consideration of the entire material available on^record, this^Court is of the^view that^the maintenance granted to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people have escalated. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated 01.10.2015 in Crl. Appeal No.499 of 2015 on the file of learned V Additiona-l Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad in confirming the order dated 30.05.2015 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2013 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Erramanzil.

¶40

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stalds dismissed.

¶41

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

¶43

Sd/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, SECTI ON OFFICER 1 The lll Metropolit Magistrate Court- Erramanzil_ 2. rhe v Additionat Met-rgg_{ir;i;;r;;, ;i6" tn "n,,, court)- Hyderabad. ' Iy.""r[::",ff Pu blic Prosecutor, Hish corrt%i in" st"t" or i"r" iJinl-Ji'

¶44

1. Two One CD cc Copiesto sRt SHAFATH AHMED KHAN, Advocate topucl

ADK \P

HIGH COUR..

DATED:0710ti12023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2ll91 of 2015

¶50

.st- 6JA' E O6-
?-
lZ/
l,t"
l]'i \1 $$ I.
'g.._\y::#;,-,r ^t

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶52

(E*-{."
,O<br>

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., v. Sajida Kauser, Hyd and 4 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., v. Sajida Kauser, Hyd and 4 Otrs, Rep Pp.

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

Saayani Venkata Sesh Arun Kumar Vs Smt Gunthi Revathi and Another

Smt P.Jhansi Rani and Another Vs State of a.P., and Another

Lagishetty Yadagiri, Vs Lagishetty Bal Laxmi, and 3 Others

Mohd.Jahangir Ali, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano

Budewar Suresh, Nizamabad Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 2 Otrs.

Mohd.Jahangir Ali , Saleem, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano