Dismissed

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., v. R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLRC/455/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court reviewed an order awarding Rs.15,000 monthly maintenance. Finding the amount meager and appropriate given cost of living standards, the Court held challenging it is not permissible and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed and miscellaneous petitions were held closed.

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., Vs R.Kavya… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s91

¶2

IN THE^HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA} AT I.{YDERABAD TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:455 OF 2013

¶6

Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order made in Crl.MP.No.8128 of 2012 in DVC.No. 17 of 2012, dated 08-12-212 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

¶7

Between:

¶8

R.Purushothama Chary, Sio. Nagaiah Chary, R/o.Peddamadur Village, Devaruppala Mandal, Warangal District.

¶9

. -.Petitioner/Respondent-1

¶10

AND

¶11

Rudroju Kavya @ Santhoshi, Wo. R.Purushothama Chary, R/o.H.No.7-29, Siddartha Nagar, Dammaiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

... Respondent / Petitioner

¶13

R.Nagaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o.Peddamadur Village, Devarupala Mandal, Warangal District.

¶14

Smt. R.Pullamma, Wo. Nagaiah, R/o. Peddamadur Village, Devaruppala Mandal. Warangal District.

¶15

... Respondents / Respondents 2 & 3

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, through lnspector of Police, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. Hyderabad.

¶17

(Respondents 2 and 3 herein are not necessary parties to this petition)

¶18

... Respondent

¶19

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2013(CRLRCMP(SR). NO:^'14126 OF 2013)

¶20

Between:

¶21

Rudroju Kavya @ Santhoshi, Wo. R.Purushothama Chary, R/o H.No.7-29, Siddartha Nagar, Dammaiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioner/Respondent No.1

¶22

--i--=

¶23

AND

¶24

R.Purushothama Chary, S/o. Nagaiah Chary, R/o. Peddarnadr r Village, Devaruppala Mandal, Warangal District.

¶25

...Respond -,nUPetitioner

¶26

2- R.Nagaiah, S/o Mallaiah, R/o.Peddamadur Village Devrrrupala^Mandal, Warangal Distric :.

¶27

Smt. R.Pullamn,a, Wo. Nagaiah, R/o. Peddamadu- Villa,Je D:varuppala Mandal, Warang al District.

¶28

The State of Ardhra Pradesh, through lnspector of Polico, rep by^Public Prosecutor, Higlr Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

¶29

... Responc.enURespondent

¶30

Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C praying that in th l circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate t1e stay orders, granted in Crl.R.tl.M.P No.6()8/2013, in Crl.M.C.No.45512013 dated 1 5-03-201 3.

¶31

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013^(C RLRCMP. NO: 695 OF 2013)

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ,tnrstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Court nra,/ ber pleased to stay all furtlrer proceedings pursuant to th3 Order dated 08-12-2012 pirssed in Crl.MP.No.8128 ot 2012 in DVC.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Courl of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, tlyberab,rd ,tt Malkajgiri pending disposal of .he ciiminal revision case.

¶33

Counsel for the Petltioner: SRI CHERUKU RAMESH

¶34

Counsel for the Res pondent No.1: SRI B.S.S.PRASAD

¶35

Counsel forthe Res pondent No.4: PUBLIC PROSECUT,IR

¶36

The Court made th( following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.455 OF 2O13

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 08.12.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.8128 of 2Ol2 in D.V.C.No.17 of 2Ol2 on the file of iearned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri and allou, the present revlslon case.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State.

¶44

¶45

A perusal of the record shows that the Revision pertains to the year 2013. The Court below vide order dated 08.72.2012 in Crl.M.P.No.812B of 2OI2 tn D.V.C.No.17 of 2Ol2 awarded a sum of Rs. i 5,OOO / - to ttre respondent herein towards her monthly maintenance on or before 7th day of succeeding month of the due/accrual month i.e., January 2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is preferred.

¶46

This Court upon careful consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the submissions made by both the

¶47

¶48

learned counsel is of the view that the mainlen2p6s 3rl,arded by the Court belo'v is very meager and apprc priate. C tallenging such a meagre.mount is not permissible at this stag;e eLs the cost of living standa'ds of the people has been es.:alatt:d. Hence, this Court did not find any reason to interfere with th: orcer passed by the Court l>elow. Therefore, this Court is not ilrclined to entertain the Revision Case as the same is devoid of rne.'its.

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dis;n-riss;ed.

¶50

Miscellane ous Petitions, per-rding if an-y, shall slald closed.

¶51

¶52

sJ/-'r.sRtNtvAs DEPJIY FIEGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// '-lL1 SI:CTION OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54

1 Ih" {^{Metropoitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Matkajgiri.} 2. Two CC to PU lLlC PROSECUTOR, High Court for tire State lf Telangana at Hyderabad. [Ot,T] 3. One CC to SR CHERUKU RAMESH, Advocate [OptJC] 4. One CC to SRI B.S.S.PRASAD, Advocate [OpUi] 5. Two CD copies STB

HIGH^GOURT

EW,J

DATED:1^1lO7l',1A23

ORDER

CRLRC.No.45^{5 of 2013}

¶65

grATE 6
("I
I :,)i): \1 t$ls ':
,.:
\ .),
1rr..,r1
'i:ea,--

¶66

CRIMINAL^REVISION CASE^{IS DISMISSED}

¶67

@
(n
I
)t"lr,;

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., v. R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Purushothama Chary, Warangal Dt., v. R.Kavya , Santhoshi, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

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

Smt. Paradapallyl Deepika, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Daljith Singh Vs the State of Telangana and Another

P.Srinivas Vs Yadamma and 2 Others

Sakamuri Venu and Another Vs the State of Telangana

Ch.Prasad Rao Vs Osmania University

Puli Anjaneyulu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.