Dismissed

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, v. Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

Telangana HC1 Feb 2023CRLRC/480/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the Family Court's maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights orders. Finding no merit in the appellant's submission that the trial court ignored his circumstances and noting the lack of new evidence adduced before the High Court, the revision was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance orders of the Family Court were upheld and the criminal revision was dismissed.

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, Vs Mrs. Nirmala… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁸ ]

¶2

i i I I I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA}

¶7

CRIMINA LRE^{VISION CASE NO:480 0F 2010}

¶8

Criminal Revision^{Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr'P'C against the} Judgment dated^{06-04-2009in M'P No 272 ot 2O0B in M C.No74 of 2004 on the} file of the Court^{of the Judge, Family Court,Secunderabad'}

¶9

Between:"="'"6.

¶10

Between:"="'"6. Vinoo Joseph @ Vinod Dass, Sio M'B'Das' aged 36 years' Occ:^Business' Woi-z-1ez,Ghan-smandi,Secunderabad' ...AppELLANT/pETtTtoNER

¶11

AND^"i. t,to. Nirmala Helen @ Nirmala Rao, w/o D.Vinod Joseph, aged 36 years, ' 6;;, T;;"6r, R/o H:No.,3-143' Ghansmandi' Secunderabad'

¶12

1. Alisha Simran' 5. i+;h;"-i;;;pn,^{S/o o.v'.to"heph,aged7 vears' occ: Student'Flio H'No 7-3-} bv her mother^NirmalaHelan

¶13

" i;{Ehffi#;'di S;,;;aerabio' '"p Respondent^No.1 in-"-{oJna"nt No.2^{is not necessaryparty)..} -

¶14

4yi'"-#E;i'd;#;,;-d;;h,'."pbitu::ll["rB8l""tl?irl_'Jr??ff #ft Is

¶15

l.A. NO: 1 OF^{201O(CRLRCMP. NO:709 oF 2010)}

¶16

Petition under^{Section482 of Cr'P} 'C^{praying that in the circumstances} StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalRevisionCase,theHighCourt maybepleasedtosuspendtheoperationofjudgmentandorderdated06-04.2009 No. 74 of 2004^{on the file of the Judge' Famlly} in M.P. No.^{272 of 2OOB in M'C} Court, Secunderabad.

¶17

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI WASIMAHMED KHAN}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1, 3: SRI P' SAI PRASAD}

¶19

Counsel^{forthe RespondentNo'4: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶20

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.48O of2O1 o

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Order dated 06.04.2009 in M.p.No.272 of 2OO8 in M.C.No.74 of 2OO4 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Secunderabad.

¶24

2 Heard the learned Public prosecutor and perused the record

¶25

One Nirmala Helen along with her two children filed M.C.No.74 ol 2004 against appellant/husband. The trial Court consider-ing the arguments of both sides granted Rs. 1,000/- per month to the 1"r petitioner and Rs.50O l- per month each to the 2"a and 3.d petitioners. Aggrieved by the sarne, revision petitioner/husband filed M.p.No.272 of 20Og to modify the order in M.C.No.74 ol 2OO4 and the salne was dismissed. Aggrieved lry the said order,

¶26

¶27

appellant/husband preferred the present crimina-l revlslon case.

¶28

Perusal of the record shows that FCOP No.247 of 2004 is filed by the wife against her husband for divorce and the husband filed counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial Court considering the arguments of both sides dismissed FCOP.No.247 of 2OO4 and allowed the counter claim hled by the appellant/husband for restitution ol conjugal rights.

¶29

The respondent/wife also filed an application in M.P.No.197 of 2008 in M.C.No.74 of 2OO4 for modification of the maintenance granted to her. The trial Court considering the evidence on record, allowed the M.P.No. 197 of 2008 and observed that appellant/husband has to pay Rs.9,000/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent/wife and her children.

¶30

¶31

Appellant/husbar-rcl mainly contended that he filed an application in M.P.No.272 of 2008 in M.C.No.74 of 2OO4 for modification of the maintenance amount granted b1. tl-rt: trial Court in view of the changing circumstances. His wife/first respondent is a post graduate and working as a teacher and earning handsome saiary. Out ol two children one daughter is already residing with hinr and the tria_l Court directed him to pay Rs. 1,000/- to respondent/wife and Rs.5,0O/- to the son r,r,ho is in the custody of his wife but later he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed. Therefore, he is ready to maintain the respondent and her son, but the trial Court without considering the above aspects dismissed the application. Hence, he requested this Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court.

¶32

No documents <sup>rere filed either bv the appellant/husband or by the respondent/wife on their

¶33

¶34

behalf. Having regard to the facts and

¶35

circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and granted maintenance amount. Therefore, this Court hnds no reason to interfere with the Order of the trial Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merrts.

¶36

Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

To,

//TRUE COPYII

SD/.M.MANJULA DEPUTY REGISTRARq)

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

The Family Court Judge, Secunderabad.

¶44

One CC to Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, Advocate tOpUCl

¶45

One CC to Sri P. Sai^prasad, Advocate tOpUCI

¶46

Two ccs to the Pubric^prosecutor, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶47

Two CD Copies gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0110212023

ORDER

_.-.a:'. : '.1 : . -.: : - -. =
31 14qt 2ryJ

¶53

CRL.R.C.No.480 of 2010

¶54

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE

¶55

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, v. Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Vinod Joseph , Vinod Dass, v. Mrs. Nirmala Helen, , Nirmala Rao, and 3 Others

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

Mohd. Yousuf, Vs Mohd. Nabeel, and Another

Mohammed Shafee Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mr. Timothy T. Gonmei, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Dr. Karam Kumar Chinmalli , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 2 Others

Smt. Kavitha and Another Vs M.Srinivas Rao and the State of A.P.

Dr.N.Prakash Rao, Vanasthalipuram, R.R.District Vs N.Parvathi Bai, Secunderabad and 2 Others