Dismissed

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.

Telangana HC28 Jul 2023CRLRC/3310/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC seeking to reduce a maintenance order, holding that the meagre quantum, decided years ago, could not be challenged now due to escalated cost of living.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order to pay Rs. 5,000/month as maintenance and Rs. 20,000 costs to respondents 2 to 4.

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN^{THE HiGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

'HiXl'l5"$'.l;1-'J?T'li-"+"3[JY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE^{HONOURABLESRIJUSTICEE'V' VENUGOPAL} cRl^MIN AL^{REVIsloNC ASENO:33100F2016}

¶5

cRl^MIN

¶6

"n" Criminal^{Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr'P C' against the Order} C"'o'tZn^{of 2013 on the file of the Court of the XVI} dated^{07.11 2016 made} 'n Additional^{District and SessionsJudge Court-cum-XVl AdditionalMetropolitan} sessions^{Judgecourt-cu.-,i,ooon,"^ar Family court' Rangareddy District at} Malkajgiri.

¶7

Between:

¶8

333 ili.I?,n,?,:ifl^{," xXlo,';,,.'31?,,} "?iJ#',y",.,$:t$'",i,,%ilftt#oi1?..'''1"u"'

¶9

"'Petitioner/ResPondent

¶10

AND

¶11

?31' ?. i'.",:?:^{t? tixfl L 3 g['fl I}

¶12

, H: "r.,,3:?,31,H' T,gil ?,^{l": B} "^{n?r",'': ";} Hyderabad.

¶13

smt.^{Naguru Radha} 9,,j"#,i'Pi,-*,{: rHsfl t}ii'"T3!5'-Pd%X.it3i5 ihli,,,i3i3;llB:":^{#[; ru.tv bi.i,.t}

¶14

Kum.^{N.Nehasri, D/o N'NageswarReddy'Agerl about 12 years' Occ:} student,R/o.FlatN;lT;:"s;i"s'i-rv(an'siResidencv'oldAlwal'Secunderabad, n"ng''H"iiy^{Jitt'i"-tl'n"p'ny her motherwho is natural} 6irraLn^{S.t.Naguru Radha @LavanYa'}

¶15

Mr. N.Saketh^{Reddy,S/o' N NageswarReddy'Aoedabout 10 Years' Occ:} ' s"|.i sut Manasa" Residencv Old Alwal'

¶16

Student,^{Rl/o. Flat G r-'i,} Secunderabad'^{nrngu'"C"diySitttiii'n"pluv his mother who is natural} criiOiun Smt.^{Naguiu Radha or Lavanya}

¶17

'..ResPondents

¶18

l.A.No: 10F 20 16(CR LRCM P.No: 5176 OF 20161

¶19

petition under Ser 482 cr'P c' praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit rireo in sr sh c'u- mav be o'"'o " ;Tr:,';{ T;"i };i'i:::illill"li,'ie'}i XV Add, ona,,",,,,1" x";k[nlt l:i: ];: ff::il: um-lll Additional Family cou(, Ranga Reddy District at t\zlarkajgiri.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A. PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ASSISTANT pUBLtC The Court made the following: ORDER 'ROSECUTOR

¶21

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No.331O oF 2016

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2016 in M.C.No. 129 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge Court-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court-cum-lII Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at Malkajgiri (for short, "the trial court").

¶26

Heard Mr. A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shalini, learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the trial court vide order dated 07.11.2016 in M.C.No.l29 of 2013 directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,OO0/- per month to respondent Nos.2 to 4 per month each as maintenance from the date of hling of the petition and further directed him to pay an amount of Rs.20,O00/- towards costs of this petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.

¶28

¶29

A perusal of the record^{shows that the matter pertainsto} theyear,20l6.Uponcarefulconsiderationoftheentirematerial available on record, this^{Court is of thevieu' thatthe} maintenance^{grantedto respondent Nos.2 to 4 is verymeagre and} appropriate. Challenging^{such ameagre amount isnot} permissible at this^{stage as the cost of living standardsof the} people have escalated.^{Hence,I do not find any reason to interfere} with the order dated 07.ll.2016^{in M.C.No.129 of 2Ol3 passed} by the trial court. Therefore,^{the Revision isliable tobe} dismi ssed.

¶30

5 Accordingly, the Crimina-l^{Revision Case is dismissed}

¶31

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pendingif any, shall stand closed'}

¶32

SD/- K.SAILESHI DEPUW^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶33

SECTTON^OFFICER

¶34

To,

¶35

,il::,AYinll'jt"g1:.?il!!3Tf,i-'.',Fli,,'X33ft ,f :i["'HlUti"f^t':"&X ReddY^{Oistrictat Malkalgrrr'}

¶36

OneCC^{to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao' Advocate IOPUCI'}

¶37

3 Two ccs^{to pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of relanganaat} HYderabad'(OUT)

¶38

Two^{CD CoPies'}

¶39

YIP \ GJ

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810712023

ORDER

grATE O
z
f s1s i)o
rJ
$5 A
r)
*ti,
D E:1)

¶44

CRLRC.No.3310 of 2016

¶45

DISMISSING THE^CRL.RC

¶46

S .Jo
>

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naguru Nageswar Reddy, Kadapa Dt., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajjuri Sathish Vs the State of A.P.

Mir Faiyaz Ali Khan, Hyderabad., Vs Mrs. Zee Shan Nawaz, Hyd and Anr, Rep Pp.

Sri Arvind Agarwal Vs the State of Telangana

Vuppula Shailesh Kumar, Bangalore Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Radhari Ashok Kumar, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Radhari Sujatha, Warangal Dist. and Ano

Sri P.M.Rahul Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its P.P., and 2 Others