In this criminal revision, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petition challenging a lower court's order granting maintenance. The bench held that the awarded amount was appropriate given rising living standards and refused interference.
Criminal Revision Case dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions stayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CBIMINALREVISION CASE No: 398 oF 2014
Criminal Revision Case under Sectioru39T & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 25.11.2013 made in Cr|.MP.NO.OS of 2013 in tMC.No.27 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Family court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.
Between:
T.Narsing, Sio. T.Krishna, Occ: Private Employee, Fl/o. H.No.29-705, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.
... Petitioner/Respondent
AND
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO: 682 OF 20141
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in Crl.ti/lP.No.S of 2013 in MC.No.27 of 2011 dt.25.'11.20'13 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family court-cum-Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA
Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI VENKAT RATHNAM THANNEERU
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIZARATH ALI ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
It I I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.398 OF 2OL4
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.S of 2013 in M.C.No.27 of 2OlI, dated 25.11.2013 on the file of the learned Family Court-Cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.
2
such a meagre amountis not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards ofthe people has been escalated' Hence, I do not find any reasonto interferewith the order passed by the court below. Therefore,this court is not inclinedto entertajn the
Revision Case asthe same is devoid of merits'
5 Accordingly, the CriminalRevision Caseis dismissed'
MiscellaneousPetitions, pendingif any, shall staldclosed'
Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTYREGIST
\
To,
//TRUECOPY//
SECTIO OFFICER
YJP
6
I
HIGH COURT
EW,J
DATED:2410712023
ORDER
-. -::=:_l :'.
'- - i--: i: :.::',-- .,
-.:t
6*
(
t{$
t\ {rt
c a, ,.,
',!) .-' .,'/
i..,
D
CRLRC.No.398 of 2014
DISMISSING THE CRL.RC
@o{'
,s
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Family Court's order awarding meagre maintenance due to escalated living costs.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Narsing
The State of A.P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
