Dismissed

Mohd. Ataullah, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. v. the State of a.P., through P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023CRLRC/414/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Case No. 414 of 2010, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition challenging the order of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. The court held that the first appellate court correctly directed the return of gold ornaments and awarded maintenance to the wife, finding no infirmity in the lower court's findings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed confirming the order of the first appellate court dated 04.01.2010.

Mohd. Ataullah, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 414 OF 2O1O

¶6

Criminal Revrsion Case filed Under Sectrons 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Order dated. 04.01.2010 passed in Revision Petition No.123 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the V Additional lvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated.14.07.2009 passed in tul.C.No.3 of 2004 on the flle of the Court of the Xlll Additional Chief N,4etropolitan ltlagistrate Court, at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1- Mohd. Ataullah, S/o Late lvlohd. Sarwar Sultan, Occ.Govt. Service, Ryo. H.No. 17-3-311/14, Azmath Nagar, Yakutpura,

¶9

1. Mohd. Azizullah, Sio. Late I!4ohd. Sarwar Sultan, Occ.Private Service, R:/o. H.No. 17-3-311/14, Azmath Nagar, Yakutpura,

¶10

Noor Jahan Begum, W/o. Late lr,{ohd. Sarwar Sultan, Occ.Household, RJo. H.No.^{'17-3-311/14,} Azmath Nagar, Yakutpura.

¶11

... Petitioner/Respondents

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd. through Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad.

¶14

Ayesha Sultana, D/o Mohd. Sadat AIi, Occ.Household, R/o. H.No. 16-94o,lPl97 ' old ,vlalakpet' Hyderabad

¶15

...RespondenuRespondent

¶16

l.A NO: 2 OF 201O(CRLRCMP. NO: 605 OF 2010)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of order passed in Crl.R.P.No. 123 of 2OO9, dated.04-01-201 0, on the file of the V Additional lvletropolitan Magistrate Court, at Hyderabad, pending drsposal of this Crl.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. KHAJA MANZOOR ALI (Not Present)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI MOHD GHULAM HUSSAIN(Not Present) The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

'lll:^{HON'BtESMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHr</sup>}

¶21

( I MINAL RElllSlON CASE No.4l4 ,)f 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

ll c;l Rer i,.ion Cose is filed oooir st^,he r rlt:r dcied 04.0l 2Crfr i R l"..lo l2'3 cl 2009 on lhe file <>f lhe^{,-Aciditionol} Mt:tr,- gtr^,i'r'r(.,is ols Jr rlqe Court, Hyderobo<1

¶24

r rrr:(l :lrnsel for the petilicners rrs well os I rlll'l:i fr rr lltr^,, :sr ;olClents obsenl

¶25

ri:;prc r r lr;rl No.2/wife througlt Sor: .:irtl Power of Artor )lr crl.rlrric;otion in M.C.No.3 of :ll- )4 ogcilsl tr, il rr r ia., r,r:i;lion 3 (2) of the w<>men [' cle ciior, of lilr rlrl,lr ) . L,r Ar:t. l:i86 for return of hergod orn: rrelis. The .l rlt r 1 .-|,4.:19il..;he nrorried Al witt- the rrr :lrer do,.,ver ol Fs lirer ;r,rrr:nls gove 10 tulos cf crol<J )l ll I me I r1S. IL,tlrt t'lr. I , , ] l(l !i(.lrl(r(lrLJ jOheZ OrliCIeS, Cr>Stly C ( )lhCS, Si ver r )l^(ll lir' ire:il c,rrcrs herein ond petit o,t.rr Nlr.2 .r( K.r , ^/^-r:, ;, I l,r,-- isi cf tohoz orticles on 08.02.20011. Sht: joinecl 1lr,: a'rtr llre g:t:'il oner No.l, bul petiti<>ners r( lroised lrrlr [,'rrril; I^{</sup> r! ,.r^, i trler she come lo krorr., rl r: D r-) i.lrr itrr rr :'l airvrrrr r: lo lter on 07.02.2)02 Cnri lltus :i-r_.}

¶26

¶27

requested the Court to relurn her gold ornoments ond jahez orticles ond olso meher omount of Rs.7,000/- ond iddot period mointenonce of Rs.5000/-per month totoling to Rs.l 8,000/- ond poy foir ond better provision of Rs.75,000/- ond further lo relurn f urnilure etc.. worth of Rs.l .50,000/-

¶28

Respondenl No.2/petilioner exomined herself os PWI ond exomined her fother os PW2 ond morked Exs-Pl ond P2. Petilioner No.I /respondenl No.I wos exomined os RW 1 ond morked Ex.R I on his beholf . The triol Court hos considering the evidence cf both sides held thot oll ihe^johez orticles, gold ond silver or'nonrcnls wcre clreody returned to her ond olso ogreed to poy m<rintenonce omounl to his child ond occordingly dismrssed lhe opplicotion on 14.07.2009

¶29

Aggrieved by the soid order, she preferred on oppeol in Rev.Pet.No.l23 of 2009. The first oppellote Court consider the entire evidence on record ollowed lhe revision ond directed lhe respondents to return gold orticles ond oiso directed the responden't No.l therein io provide foir ond better provision of Rs a0.000/- within two months. The first oppeiiole Court further observed thol she received Rs.7000/- lowords

¶30

¶31

nreher om,rL, r- ond Rs.5000/- towords iddot peri,tcj mciniencnce from qr ozi o 1,:)r divorce, but he hos not prc vicr<:c tny onrrrunt under foir <;n I retter provision for her future lile, <;s:, c:l- grorferl on onrour-t rf Rs.40,000/- in the settiemeni or <; cr srr direc ted petilion.--rsi'rt, pondents 1o return gold ornorrents. :<.ll.l is the Xcrox copy rf the list of the orticles token by ii:. resconclcnt No.27pe.ti1iitn )r As per the soid list l0 tulcs <>; rr td wos not ,-iurrecl 1c, l- :r ond thus, directed the petitionerl,'rc,r) lr cjenl:^jo ,eturr tl e soi I rlrticles

¶32

o--tit oni:rs/rc ipcndents preferred lhe prc;er t r;,y'5i 11-1 i)r'rd :.rntenrlecl l-rot petitioner No.l/husbond is tir^. ;, hvsir l; 1v ,-:'rollenl;ec1 .,€rrson ond he ocquired ihe p,r-c'r;r i 1oi-: irl lict qroto. lle sl rted lhot she filed folse <Jowry lror:rssl en car:;t rt CC l.lo..l20^(r :1004. She cleody odmittecl th:lt srr: rcc,:ivecl oll tl-re johe,z or r;lr;s, olong with gold ornaments. llr: I- trcr slcried 1l'ol sh:^,r., r n' to her brolhers morrioge c c)n:J w tlt cto ct' o:'r'rorne rts or c she did not relurn to horne. A; sf e: r,.rs p,regltll jusl befurte trr r monlhs of her delivery ond tn iraor i.r oi e.at itcr l-rrolirer', n'r:' ir-rge, she went to her porenis I o- se i, i sL ci't !-lari{.i

¶33

¶34

ond silver^{ornomenis ore withher only ond olso he disputedthe} gronting of Rs.40,000/-^{lowordsfoir ond betterprovision towords} fulure mointenonce^{ond requestedthe Court to set oside the} order of^{thefirsl oppelloleCourt'}

¶35

Though.^{the petitioners hereinpreferreclon oppeol} before ihis^{Court, they did not turn up before this Court tror} represenled by^{their counselThe first oppellont Court'} consideringtheentireevidenceonrecord,riqhllyollowedthe petition direciing^{petitioner No'1/husbondto pcrvRs a0'000/-} towords fulure^{mointenonce of respondentNo 2iwife wilhrn tvlo} (02) monfhs. This^{Court finds no infirmilyirr ihe orcler ot tlre tirst} o ppelloie Couri.

¶36

B ln the result^{Crl.RC is dismissecl confirrningthc-' order} of the firsl^{oppellote Court in Rev Pet No l23 ol 2009 doted} 04.0I .20,lO.^{Accordingly, the criminolrevision coseis disnrissed}

¶37

Miscelloneous^{petitions.if ony, pending' shollstorrclclosed}

¶38

Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO FICER

¶39

To, 1, The V Additional^{Metropolitan SessionsJudge' Hyderabac'(Withrecordsif} any)

¶40

z i[i, xr1^{Additionalchief Metropolitant,4agistratecourt,at Hyderabad.(with} records^if anY)

¶41

3 Two ccs^{to ihe public prosecutor,High court fcr the stateof Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶42

a o;" rc t" inr.^{futrunMANZooRALl, Advocate [oPUC]} S O"" CC^{to SRl. MOHD GHULAMHUSSAIN' Advocate [OPUC]} 6. Two CD CoPies tvlMK

HIGH COURT

PSS, J

DATED:25104121 2:i

-t<br>ri, I l:, /(-. <br>ORDER
i
CRLRC.No.414 rf 2010 1 :i JUt 2[23

¶47

DISMISSING TI. ]= CRIMINAL, REVISION CASE

¶48

(4
).,
)j:

Mohd. Ataullah, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. v. the State of a.P., through P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ataullah, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. v. the State of a.P., through P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

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

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Perumalla Sammaiah

M. Sridhar Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Dr. DayankaDukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

G.Narendar, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 3 Others

Chand Chaush Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath