Dismissed

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Telangana HC9 Aug 2023CRLRC/495/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision seeking to set aside a Family Court maintenance award, the High Court of Telangana held that dismissing the petition for non-attendance was inappropriate under Bani Singh. However, finding the awarded maintenance 'meagre' and 'appropriate' due to escalated living costs, the Court asserted it had no reason to interfere and dismissed the revision as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case (No. 495 of 2013) was dismissed with no interference in the maintenance order of the Family Court.

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar Vs the State of A.P. and 3… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 495 OF 2013

¶7

Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.p.C. against the Judgment dated 01.02.2013 made in M.c.No.539 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar, S/o late Herala Jee, Occ: Business, R/o H.No 84-8691254, Banjara Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

The State. of A.P., Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...Relpondent No. 1

¶12

Smt. Gowlikar Archana Bai,, Wo Ganeshwar, Occ Housewife, Rl/o Murthjaguda Village, Moinabad Mandat, R.R.Dist.

¶13

G-owlikarVishalakshi,, D/g Qa4eshwar, Occ: Student, R/o Murthjaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶14

9owlikar Vivek, S/o Gangshwar, Occ: Student, R/o Murthjaguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.Dist.

¶15

(respondents Nos.3 and 4 are being minors, rep. by their natural mother and guardian, the 2nd respondent herein).

¶16

..RESPONDENTS No.2 to 4/PETITIONER No. 1 to 3

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLRCM P. NO: 762 OF 2013)

¶18

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the award dated 01.02.201 3 in M.C.No.539 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, R.R.Dist., at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt. M. SHTVA KUMAR (NOT PRESENT) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : PUBLIC pROSECUTOR

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

,,7

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶23

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.495 of 2O13

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the pel.itioner herein seeking to set aside the Award dated 01.O2.2013 in M.C.No.539 of 2OO8 on the file of the Court of tl-re .Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶26

As there was no representation on beha Lf of the petitioner on 22.tt.202t, 16.06.2023, 20.07.202:\ and 27.07.2023, the matter was directed to be iistcd today, there is no representation for the petitioner

¶27

Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1 -State

¶28

A perusal of the record shows that the present criminal revision case pertains to the year 2Ol3 . Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in '.Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshl", u,herein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss an1' appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter u,ithout

| (tee6) 4 y)cJ2o

examining the merits. Therefore, this Court is inclined^to proceed with the case on merits, this revision is filed against the Award dated 01.02.2013 in M.C.No.539 of 2OO8 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶33

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 herein with the petitioner herein was solemnized on 1 1. 12.2OO3. At the time of marriage,^the parents of respondent No.2 presented Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 10 Tulas of gold and 5O Tulas of Silver and other household articles worth of Rs.35,O00/- as per the demald of the petitioner and his parents. During their wedlock, respondent No.2 blessed with two children (i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4).

¶34

After three years, the petitioner started harassing respondent No.2 both mentally and physically on petty issues and by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5O,00O/-. On that, several panchayats were held, but all are in vain. The petitioner and his parents necked out respondent No.1 from their house on 23.03 .2OO8 thereby respondents compelled to stay at respondent No.2 parents' house. The

¶35

¶36

\ l

¶37

petitioner refused to maintain respondents. Respondent No.2 is a household lady and has no means to maintain herself filed M.C.No.539 of 2008 stating that the petitioner is a Business man and getting more than Rs.20,O0O/- and also deriving income from agriculture to an extent of Rs.2,0O,OO0/ per month. Thereby, the respon<lents are entitled for maintenance.

¶38

The learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, a1 L.B. Nagar allowed the M.C., directing the petitioner t o pay sum of Rs. 1 ,OOO/ - each per month to respondent Nos.2 to 4 towards maintenance from the date of that order. So far respondent Nos.3 an<I 4 are concerned, they are entitled for maintenance till tl-rey attain majority. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

¶39

Learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.l-State would submit that the learned Court belo-a. after examining the evidences, upon perusing the material available on record ald facts belore it, has granted a meagre amount as monthly mainlenance. Challenging quch a meagre amount at this stag<: is not

I I

permissible as the cost of living standards of the people has been escalated in today's context. Hence seeks to dismiss the criminal revision case.

¶44

This Court upon careful consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is of the view that the maintenance awarded by the Court below is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people has been escalated in many folds. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision Case as the same is devoid of merits.

¶45

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald

¶47

closed.

¶48

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Gb SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The Judge, Family Court,^{R,R. District at L.B.Nagar.} 2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶51

One CC to SRl. M. SHIVA^{KUMAR'Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

¶52

¶53

$\o

¶54

HIGH COURT DATED:09/08/2023

¶55

ORDER CRLRC.No.495 of 2013

¶56

1 ia€ sTAf A'

4
L) ? 0 |tc,l 2[?3 l.:.C)

*
-s {:iJ
irA,'i a-

¶57

CRL.R.C. IS DISMISSED

¶58

6\ {trr

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Gowlikar Ganeshwar v. the State of A.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

J.Srinivas Vs J.Sridevi

Smt. Padma, Vs State of Telangana

Madipally Amruthamma Vs the Stateof Ap., Rep by Its P.P and Anothers

Smt.N.Leela Kumari, N.Lalaguda, Sec-Bad and Anr., Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., High Court and Anr.

Bollam Ravi, Warangal Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp and Anr.