Dismissed

J.Srinivas v. J.Sridevi

Telangana HC8 Aug 2023CRLRC/490/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a criminal revision filed by the husband to set aside an order enhancing maintenance. The Court held the trial Court rightly imposed obligation on the divorced husband to maintain his ex-wife and minor daughter, noting the original grant was meagre amidst escalated living costs, and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The petition for revision was dismissed; the impugned maintenance order was upheld.

J.Srinivas Vs J.Sridevi — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHIH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 490 OF 2011

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C., against the order dated 04-02-201 1 made in IVl.C.No. 13 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class at Manthani.

¶8

Between:

¶9

J Srinrvas, _S/o. Gangaiah, aged 43 years, Occ: School Asistant Venugumafla a^{P HS} r -^{KarimnagarDistrict, presently Working at Z.p.H.S.(Boys) korutla,} Korutla Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

J.Sridevi, W/o. Srinivas, Aged 38 years, Occ: Household

¶13

J.Srilekya, D/o. Srinivas, Aged 12 years, Occ: Student (minor)

¶14

Under the guarndianship of her molher and guardian the Respondent No.1

¶15

Both are Rl/o. lt/anthani Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

The State of A.P., Rept. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENT

¶19

CRLRCMP. NO: 745 OF 2011

¶20

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 suspend the operation of the order dated O4-O2-2011 passed in M.C.No. 13 of

¶21

2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Frrst Class lVlagistrate, Manthani, pending disposal of the criminal revision case.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI, Advocati: for SRl. S SURENDER REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent no.3: SRI VIZARI.TH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent no.'l and 2: None Appeared

¶25

The Coud made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.49O OF 2011

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order datcd O4.02.2OL1 in M.C.No.13 of 2009 on the file of learned Juclicial Magistrate of First Class, at Manthani (for short, "the trial Court") in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.i,2O0/- to Rs.2,25O/- per month to respondent No.l from Rs. 1,O00/ to Rs.2,250/- per month to respondent No.2 from the date of petition until further orders.

¶29

Heard Mr. Ravi, learned counsel representing Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 and they were blessed with respondent No.2. Previously, M.C.No.7 of 2O00 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking maintenance and the sarne was allowed by granting maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month to respondent Nos.1 ar, d 2 respectively. Later, M.C.No. I 1 of 2OO2 \.as filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking

¶31

El;-::1ffi

¶32

cnhanccmerlt^{ofmaintenal-rcc i1lld the same u,asallo\ /ed b-v} enhancing^the maintenancc^{to Rs.600/-to respondentNo.1 and} the claim against respolldent^{No.1 rvas dismissed.}

¶33

Later, M.C.No.1 1 of 2002^r'r,as challenged by^rcsponder-rt Nos.1 and 2 in^{Crimirterl Revistotr Casc No.29 of 2OO5 before the} learned III Additionarl District^{:md ScssionsJudge, Karirnnagar} and the learned Judge^enl-ranr:r:d thc maintenance^{amount of} Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,000/ in lavottr ol^{respoudentNos.1} and² Subsequentl_v, the^{petitioncr prcl-erre(l} a^{CriminalPe tition before} the High Courl^seeking to^quash the ordcr in Criminal^Revision Case No.29 of 2005 ar-rd^the s.1mc^{\,asdismissed}

¶34

Thereafter, respondent Nos. I and 2 filed M.C. No.13 of 2OO9 before the trial Court^arnct the lcarned Judge^{vide order} dated 04.O2.2011 in^M.C.No.13 of 20{19 enhanced the amount fo monthly maintenance^granted to resrpondent No. t herein from Rs. 1,200/- to Rs.2,25Ol and the sum granted to respondent No.2 herein^{from Rs. I,OOO/-to Rs.2,250/-from} the^date of^filing of the^{petition.Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.}

¶35

Learned counsel for the petrtioner submitted that respondent No.I failed to^join the corrpany of the petitioner even after repeated requests. The marriage between the petitioner^and

¶36

respondent No. 1 \'as dissolved by the dccree of divorce dated 27.01.2000 in O.p.No.B ol 1999 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judgc, at Jagityal. Therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not under an obligation to maintain respondent Nos. I and 2. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner married for trre second time and begotten a child. so, he is under ar-r obligation to maintain them. Respondent No.1 is a graduate and u,orking zrs a private teacher, having sufficient means to maintair-r herself. Respondent Nos. l and 2 already agitated their grievance and sought for enhancement of maintenance and this is another round of litigation which is not warranted at this stage. Therefore, sought to set aside the impugned order.

¶37

Learned Assistant^public prosecutor submitted that the trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective rightly passed the impugned order an d as the cost of living standards have escalated to a larger extent in today,s context, sought to dismiss the Revision.

¶38

The trial Court on behalf of the prosecution examined PWs. I and 2 and marked Exs.pl to p6. On behalf of the defense,

¶39

'-.*1ff-a

¶40

¶41

examined RWI and marked trxs.Rl to RB and observed that the petitioncr has stated in the cross-exarninatior-r that hc did not possess the responsibility to marintau'r his father. Though he stated that he had responsibiiin' to'r'ards ltis mother, but he failed to mentiou the same in thc chicl alfidavit or in the counter. However, the pctitioner failed to cstablish that rcspondent No.1 has self source of earning by t'a1' of <locumentarv evidence. The trial Court further observed that the ;rnccs and costs of living is enhanced at a high degree irt rccer.t vears and to meet the contingencies of hiked market ratcs one necds at least Rs.5,000/per head every month.

¶42

The trial Court also observt-'d tl-Lat a divorced^q,ifc is also entitled to claim maintenance from he r husband until she is remarried or capable of earning herself as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the trial Court righllv held that the petitioner is under an obligation to maintain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and provide them sufficient means of livelihcod

¶43

A perusal of the record shows that the matter pcrtains to the year, 201 1 and this Court vide order dated 07.03.2011 granted interim suspension o[ the or-der impugned herein on condition of thc petitioner depositing entire arrears calculating at

¶44

¶45

-z

¶46

the rate of Rs.3,0O0/ per mouth tou,ards maintenance to respondent Nos.l and 2 rvithirr a period of four weeks from today, and continuing to pay at thc sarne rate on or before lott ol every succeeding month. There is nothing available on record to show that the interim order passed b-y this Court is complied with.

¶47

Upon careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the vie',v that the maintenance granted to respondent Nos. t and 2 is vern meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a mcagrc amolrr)t is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people have escalated. Hence, I do not find any reason to in terfere with the order dated 04.02.2O11 in M.C.No. 13 of 20O9 passed by the trial Court.

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.

¶49

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Judicial Magistrate of First Ctass at Manthani (With Records if any)

¶56

Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad(OUT)

¶57

One CC to SRt. S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶58

Two CD Copies

Pr ;q<'-VH

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0810812023

ORDER

--=<=_-R:*
1'-,:.,.r. irltia;'l<br>-; 4.)<br>'(,'i
J 2 s oc,I 2m i' '<br>I ;', -,' : ti
tr,

¶64

CRLRC.No.490 of 2011

¶65

DISMISSING THE CRL.RC

¶66

.i$
p, \o >:

J.Srinivas v. J.Sridevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Srinivas v. J.Sridevi

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

Mohd.Raheem, Hyderabad., Vs Sajida Kauser, Hyd and 4 Otrs, Rep Pp.

P.Venkat Reddy, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Mohd.Jahangir Ali, Hyd Vs Mr. Syed Mohiuddin, Hyd and Ano

Vaka Vasudeva Rao, Hyd., Vs K.Srinivasa Rao, R.R.Dt and Anr, Rep Pp.

Smt. Padma, Vs State of Telangana

Kanakaraboina Laxmaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.