Dismissed

G.Venkata Sudha v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Jun 2023CRLRC/305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the wife's petition challenging the Family Court's order. The lower court had granted maintenance to the husband and children but denied the wife's claim, chartering on findings of desertion. The High Court held no infirmity existed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

G.Venkata Sudha Vs the State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 305 0F 2018

¶7

criminal Revision case under section 3gr & 4o1 of cr.p.c. against the Judgment dated 1 1 .09.2017 made in MC No. 59 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Vl Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gajula. Venkata_ Sudha, Wo. Chinna Butchaiah, Aqed about 41 veanocc: Housewife, Rl/o.H.No.11-8-64,Srir;;-Nas;;, ffiffi";:i;r;#; oi"iri"i.TS.

¶10

...Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The state of relangana, Rep.by its pubric prosecutor, High court Buitdings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 9^qr!q 9!'nl,^{Butchaiah, S/o..Venkaiah,Age:49 years,Occ:} Stenogrpapher, IOC Ltd, Tadepalli, Guntur District, Ap.

¶14

.... Respondents/Respondent

¶15

Gajula Vedanth, S/o. Chinna Butchaiah, Age: 7 years, Occ: Student,

¶16

Gajula Vivek, S/o. Chinna Butchaiah, Age: 11 years, Occ: Student, (Petitioners 3 & 4 being minors represented by their mother and natural guardian, G. Venakat sudha Petitioner)

¶17

Both are R:/o.H.No.1 1-8-64,Sriram Nagar, Khmmam. Khammam District. T.S.

¶18

...Pro-forma Respondents

¶19

(R3 & 4 are not necessary to this petition)

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2018

¶21

Petition under : ection 482 of Cr.p.C praying th tt n :hr: c rcumstances stated in the Memoran it.m of Grounds of Criminal Revrsirn Cas., the High Court may be preased to (lr: .I an interrm maintenance of Rs..l0000/ r:er ronth to the petitioner.

¶22

Counsel for the petitic ner: SRI A. S. NARAYANA

¶23

Counsel for the Respo rclent No..l: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

Counsel for the Reslro rdent No.2: SRI J. PRABHAKAR

¶25

The Court made the fol towing: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶27

CRI INAL R ISION CASE No.305 0F 018

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 4OL of the Code of Criminal^procedure, L973 (for short^.Cr.p.C.) by the petitioner, to set aside the order dated 11.09.2017 in M.C.No.59 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam.

¶30

Heard. Perused the record.

¶31

The petitioner is the wife and 3d and 4h respondents are the sons of 2d respondent. The petitioner on her behalf and 3d and 4h respondents has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.p.C. in M.C.No.59 of 2013 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Vl Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, seeking maintenance from the 2nd respondent herein. The learned Family Court Judge after conducting trial concluded that the petitioner herein had deserted the 2d respondent and the version given by the petitioner was incorrect. In fact, the 2nd respondent was ready to take care of the needs of the children and provide them the resources for education and accordingly, the learned Family Court Judge has directed the 2nd respondent herein

¶32

/- /

¶33

.^i.4

¶34

to^pay a rnaint^:nance of^{Rs.5,000/- eachper flronth t(. ht:r two sons} which would se vt: the needs^{of justice and dismissedtlre ntaintenance} case rn resp€'c: o'the^{petitionerherein. Aggrievedby th€ same,the} petitioner has p el'erred the^present revision.

¶35

The le,rrr r:cl counsel appearing for the^pt:titioner' -^{wife would} submit that :ht learned^{FamilyCouttJudgeoilght .o havegranted} maintenance I^r the^{petitionerby observingthe vers on of 2nd} respondent rtsband that the^{petitionervvas vuorkirrg as Lab} Technician w,ts ttlt supported by^{any documentilry prcr.'fand erred in} refusing mainte rance to the^petitioner.

¶36

Admitte:dl ,, maintenance was^{granted in D.V.C. :ase iled by the} petitioner. Ac<:,;rrlingly to the learned counsel frlr the^{petitioner/case} was not^{prosect r:ed} and dismissed^{for non-prosecution'}

¶37

Considerir^g the facts and circumstances^{of the citsr:, I do not find} any infirmity n^h,-. orders^{passed by the learned Family Cotrrt Judge in} refusing to^g-at t maintenance in^{M.C.No.59 of 2013 arld lhe present} revision case is^ra:le to be dismissed.

¶38

¶39

Accordinq^y, the Criminal^{RevisionCase is dismiss;ed. However,} the 3'd and 4'1 r'espondents -^children are at^{liberry to move the}

¶40

¶41

concerned Court under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking alteration. of

¶42

allowance granted.

¶43

Miscellaneous Petitions,^pending if any, shall stand closed. I

¶44

SD/. B.SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶45

//TRUE COPY// CD SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To,

¶47

'1. The Judge, Family Court cum Vl Additional^{Sessions Judgeat Khamma'}

¶48

rwo ccs to the^{PublicProsecutor,High court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶49

One CC to^{Sri A. S. Narayana,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶50

One CC to Sri^{J. Prabhakar,Advocate} IOPUC]

¶51

Two CD CoPies

GJ )*4-

HIGH COUIRI

DATED:0610e 't21023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.it015 ot 2018

¶57

.a l riI .-
I
.<br>4t
]JL ?M
<br>

¶58

DISMISSING l HE CRIMINAL REVISION ClrSli

¶59

*0
l':6)
s.1/

G.Venkata Sudha v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkata Sudha v. the State of Telangana

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

The Food Inspector, Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad. Vs G. Ramesh, Hyderabad, and 7 Otrs.

Marsukolla Ramu Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Y.Sudharashan Vs The Collector (Cs)

Kanithi Veerabhadra Chary, Vs Cheryala Madana Chary and 3 Others

Vamshee Krishna Kovuru Vs Smt. Abhilasha Kovuru

S. Seshachala Sai , Sai Vs The state of Telangana