Dismissed

Bandela David Sandeep v. Sheena Mrinalini

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023CRLRC/453/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order of Rs. 10,000 monthly and Rs. 1 lakh annually for a minor child, the Court held that the petitioner, an architect with no evidence of unemployment, possessed the capacity to maintain the child. The impugned order was confirmed as reasonable, and the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders dated 16.03.2020 in M.C. No. 18 of 2018 were confirmed.

Bandela David Sandeep Vs Sheena Mrinalini — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 453 OF 2020

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC against^{the Orders} dated 1610312020 in M.C.No.^'18 of 2018 on the^{file of} the^Honorable Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad^.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Bandela David Sandeep, S/o. B.J.Sudhakar, Age.39 years, Occ. Unemployed, Rl/o. Plot No.42, Brundavan Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

Sheena Mrinalini, Wo. B.David Sandeep, Aged^{about35 yrs, Occ.} Pvt.Employee R/o.H.No.'1¹ -4-304, Chilkalguda,^{Secunderabad.}

¶14

Baby Bandela Berly Unnati, D/o. Bandela^{David SandeepAged} about 7 Yrs, Occ. Student Respondent No.2 being^minor represented by the Respondent No.1 as mother and natural g u a rd i a n u n o"' ."'=';13i,1 "' 3,113 ifl s: i ; ?;E[H fr 31i. -,

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its^{Public Prosecutor, High Court} at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS NO.3.

¶17

lA NO: 1OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section'15'l CPC^praying that in^the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^of the^{petition, the} High Court may be^pleased to suspend the operation of^{the ordersdt.} 16tb3l2o2o^passed by the Honorable Judge, Family Court^at

¶19

Secunderabad in M.C No. 1B of 2O1B till the disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Between:

¶22

Sheena Mrinalini, W/o. B.David Sandeep, Aged about 35^yrs, Occ Pvt.Employee RVo.H.No.1 1-4-304, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad.

¶23

Baby Bandela Berly Unnati, D/o. Bandela David Sandeep Aged about 7 Yrs, Occ. Student Respondent No.2 being minor represented by the Respondent No.'l as mother and natural guard ian

¶24

(Both R/o H. N o.1 1 -4-304, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ) PETITIONERS/...RESPONOENTS NO. 1 & 2

¶25

AND

¶26

Bandela David Sandeep, S/o. B.J.Sudhakar, Age.39^years, Occ. Unemployed, R/o. Plot No.42, Brundavan Colony, Sainikpuri, Secu ndera bad.

¶27

... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶28

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶29

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.3

¶30

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 vacate the interim suspension dated 29-09-2020 in l.A.No.1 of 2020 in Crl.Rc. No.453 of 2020 and dismiss the main petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. H SUDHAKARA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents 1 & 2: SRI AVEERESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 3 : SRI MURALIDHAR,

¶32

ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶33

¶34

rhd Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CR IMIN REVISION CASE No.453 0F 2020

¶37

o RDER:

¶38

'l'his (.rirninal llcvision Casc has bcen filctl challcruing rl-r c ordcr dated 16.03.2020 in M.C.No.18 ol 201.8 on thc filr of thc Judnc,^{[amilvCourt,Secundcrabad.}

¶39

lleard N{r. R.Sanjan, learned counscl rcprcscnrinq rhc c.unscl for thc revisi<)n pctitioncr, Mr. A.Vecrcsh I(rrrn:rr, lc:rrned ccru.scl For rcsp.ndcnt Nos.1 and 2 and N{r. N,luraliclher, lc:rr.,ed .\ddirional lrubhc Prosccutor

¶40

'fhe rclevant facrs in bricf are that the respondenr Nos.1 aod 2/rvifc and minor daughtcr o[the revision pcutioncr had Frled an application under Scction 125 of Code of Crinrinal proceclurc, 1973 seeking rnonthly ma_intenance. 'fhe Famtlv Court on consrdering thc materials and bv observing that the responclcnt No.1/pctiuoncr No.1 was employed and having incomc s()urce, dism.issed her applicauon for maintenancc. I lorvcvcr, grantcd Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of rhe ,od peutroner and also Rs.1,00,000/- per annum towards school and \

¶41

\l:.-,.!G! '\ N1li..l ',: .rl .^15Il()l(r

¶42

\gericr-ctl^{bv thc} transll(^{)rtttl( )ll li'c' uniiorr-Ilart''l other c\Penscs} irnputncd^{or,-lcr' thc rcspondcrlt llrefcrlcclthis rcviston}

¶43

Lcarnc.l^{counscl ior the rcvi'sionpetiti()ncrrvor-rldcontcncl} that tl-rc^{tritl (.ourt lailccl to f r( )PCdy aPPrcciatcthc t:vir-lct-tccon} recorcl^{and rvhilc detcrrniningthc quantum'the aspt ct that thc} rer.ision^{pcnn,,rlcr hecl lost 1ol; and dcpendingon his pat ents for} his sustcnancc^{sllouldlt:lr-c bccntaken into acc<lunt ( )n tlre othcr} hand, thc^{rcsponclcrtt N() 1 isworking in a\ltrltinational} (iompanv, hrlving sufFrcicnt^{lrcansand lncomcand in bettcr} position^{to rnaintainl-rcrselfand tlrc respclndcnt Nr''2' thus'} praved^{f<rr intlulgencc in rcvision and to set-asidethc liabiliry to} Pay^{thc maintcnance}

¶44

5.^{()n thc othcrhlnd,leelnedcounselfor thc rcspondents} pIcadcd thar^{the rcvision pctitioner beins an architectts} sufficientlr-^{c:rrning and having means to malntaln} respondcnt No.2 'Ihat tPart, plcading of loss^{o[ job and havingrro lncome} source^lsllot supportcd^{by any} matcrial^{much less anY}

¶45

N I IT.J crlrc l5l l1)l [)

¶46

docurncntary proo[.^'l-hus, thc clairn oF thc rcvision pcurionur is

¶47

stalc arrd ()nl),t() evoid his obligarion.

¶48

I har.c carefully peruscd the materials on record ancl thc

¶49

pleadrnus oFlcarned counsel havc bcen given duc considcrauon

¶50

'l'hc Fact drat rcspondent No.2 is minor daughtcr of thc rc'isi.n Pcrid,rrcr is n.t in dispurc.^'r'hc r..rsi.n pcntioner [rcirrg fether, his starurorv liabrliry to maintain his minor daughrcr is

¶51

undispurable. l'rairly, the revision peritioncr has not disputccl this asPect

¶52

Thc orher cssential aspect 6or consideration is whether thc

¶53

arvardcd guantum of maintcnancc is jusufied.

¶54

Thc professional qualificatron of the rcvision petirioncr as an architect and his emplovment tn eatar remained und_isputcd. 'l'hc contenrion of the revision petrtioner is that, as rhc respondent No.1 loclged report wlth the cmbassy thereupon he lost

¶55

ernplovmcnt and he is depending on his familv mcmbers F<rr slrsteflancc. At the samc time, claiming that his mother .is nctrv

i l I

:'".fffi .'*ii

su ffcring^{scvcrcrll hcrlth anc] hc has t() balc rhc cxpcnses'} Pcrtincntlr,.^{thcscrtspccrs \'crc tl()t brouqht .n t.rcco*l during} ir-rguirt'^{bcforc thc lamilr( 'or'rrt'l htrs' thctc is nothingon rccord} to iubstan^{riatcthcsc plc:r'-lirrus}

¶60

10.^{Bc that as rl mz,v,h:lvirrg rcgardto tbc admittcd qualiticadon} and er.en^{i[ lc,srnq hls cnlPkrymcntin (]ztlr is tal<cn int() account'} for profcssir>nll^{capabilitrcs mirriLrlurn carningcan bc prcsumcd'} 'l'he revision Pclltloncr^()rl one^{hend plcaclrngthat hc is susraining} on the^{contribLLttons} '^{ri I-ris flrrlLlr. mctlbcrs arrcl in tllt' sarrtc} breath^{claiminu that hc has to barc the expenditr'rrc of his} mothcr's^{illhcelth wl-rich arc straightly contrachcrinllr'ersions'} That bcing^{the position it shall bc held that the rcvisionPcutloner} is oot^{having any burdcn and hc is l-raving capaciry to bare thc} ( )n eithcr count, Qlantit.tg^{of Rs' 10'00[)/towards} expenditure. daughtcr^{and forhcr} monthlY^{maintcnanccoF his mrnot} educauon,^{lts 1,00,000/ Per lnnumrsfourrd reasclntbleand}

¶61

iusuficd /-

¶62

N'fIT.J crlrc l5l¹⁰²⁰

¶63

¶64

I t. lt is^{ncedlcss to sav that if ata\l therc are changcd} clrcurlts^{ttlrl ccs, it is [or thc rcvisionpctrtioncr to avail rcrncdy} bcforc rhc^{concctrrcdNL:rgistrarcunderappropriatcapplicauon'} lior thc lf<rresaicl,^{as rro irnpropncty or rllcgalitvis found, the} irnpugncd order^{clescr-vcs to be confirmcd and in abscncc of} rnerit, this^{revisioncase fails'}

¶65

t2 \ccor<hngh,^{thc (-riminal RcvisionCase is disrllssed'} -\s a sequcl,^{pencling miscellancouspeutions il any' stands}

¶66

closcd

¶67

//TRUE^COPY//

¶68

SD/-K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR Gb

¶69

SECTION^OFFIGER

¶70

to', '

¶71

. ,n"^{Judge, Family court'secundergb-a{}

¶72

1. onecc^{to sRl' H d;HAAR4 s4oaovocateIOPUC]} 6 5ii"^{6c i. sn} r^"iil(*kiW"lS["SBEJ3?[F'(rG),^{H gh} 4. Two^{CCs to the AD} Court^{for the State ;'i;;;g;t"'at Hvderabad'touTl}

¶73

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶74

TL ;*-

HlGH COURT

DATED:12109t2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.453 of 2020

t
1 $E sTAr e
(
q
d ?o Nrj\l 2t?3 oz
I
A. 1)r ,a rr,, at'1-')

¶80

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL R.C.

¶81

(\5

¶82

Bandela David Sandeep v. Sheena Mrinalini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandela David Sandeep v. Sheena Mrinalini

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

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Raheemuddin Vs State of Telangana

Md. Khadeer Mirza Baig Vs Md. Nazimunnisa

Lakamana Maheswari Vs The State of Telangana

T.Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Telangana, Acb

Mohammed Imran Azeez Vs Shahnaz and 2 others