Dismissed

Smt Asha Latha and another v. Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan and another

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023CRLRC/641/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of criminal revision petitions challenging a maintenance order. It held that the wife's claim should be dismissed as she earns income, while maintenance for the child remains. It directed that future enhancement requests must be filed via Section 127 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The wife's claim was dismissed; the maintenance granted to the son was confirmed. Enhancement to be sought via Section 127 CrPC application.

Smt Asha Latha and another Vs Sri. Meenakshi… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ I

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.641 OF 2021 and 70 OF 2022

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 641 OF 2021

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order daled 211112O21^.in MC.No.438 of 2016 on the file of the Court^{of the} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case cum - Additional Family Court -XXlll Additional Chief Judge -cum-^lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt Asha Latha Wo Sri.lvleenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan, Aged 40^years, Occ. Pvt Service, R/o H,NO. 92/ 3RT, Vilaynagar Colony, Hyderabad^{- 57}

¶11

Master Shanmukha Sharma, S/o Sri.Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan,^Aged 7.5 years, Minor Rep by Natural Gaurdian and mother Smt. Asha Latha,^R/o H No 92/ 3RT' Vijaynagar colony' Hyderabad

¶12

...petitioners/petitioners

¶13

¶14

Sri. hleenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan, S/o Late Venkateshwara Sharma, Aged 44 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o No.1, Kamraj Road, Parvathi Nagar, Old Perungalathoor (PGLR) CHENNAI^- 600002.

¶15

2 rhe state of retangana, Rep by its^{puoftc proself;:?frurta:Y[""i1""Ti."J:t;r,} At Hyderabad

¶16

...RespondenURespondent.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. TEKURU SWETCHA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CRIMINAL REVISION GASE No:70 OF 2022

¶18

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code^against the Order dated 211112021 in MC.No.438 of 2016 on the^{file of the Court of the} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast^Case cum - Additional Family Court -XXlll Additional. Chief^Judge -cum-^{lX Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶19

Between:

¶20

Meenakshi Sund:rra n Venkateshan, S/o. Late Venkatesrwara S rarrna Aged 39^years, Occ- Unemployecl Ii o No.'1 , Kamraj Road, Parvathi Nagirr, O c F'eru rgalathoor(PGLR), Chennar -600002

¶21

...^){: titii)ner/Respondent.

¶22

AND

¶23

'l . Smt. Asha La h:r, W/o. Meeenakshr Sundaram Venkates rzrn arle- 35 years, OccPvt Employ'ee R/o H No.92l3RT, Vijaynagar Colory, Hyrir:rabzrd

¶24

Shanmukh;r I rirrma, S/o \i]eeenakshr Sundaram /enkat:r;har age 8 years I/inor Repres ,nted by Natural Guardian and mothr:r Ash r .-att-a Wo. lVleeenaksl-ri ! undaram Venkateshan age- 35 year:;, Occ [:'vt t:mployee R/o H.No. 92/311-l \ ijaynagar Colony, H yderabad.

¶25

The State c,f^- :iangana Rep.by Public Prosecutor High C:url Buildings, High CoU rt, Fryder: r); d

¶26

...Respondents

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶28

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr rstances stated in the affidavit filed rr srp.ot of the petition, the High Court may te pleased to direct the registry to post lh(^{()rl.RC.No.70} of 2022 which was resor,'ed for^judgment on 13-03-2023 under f(: l-eing mentioned caption.

¶29

tA NO: 1 0F 2022

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circun'sta lces stated in the affidavit filed ir supc >r' of the petition, the High Court m:y be :l:rasr:d to suspend the proceedings tn 1,4 C; rlrr.438 of 2016 dated 211112021 S'endinl lisgrosal of the main Revision Case

¶31

Counsel for the Pet lioner: M/s. TEKURU SWETCHA

¶32

Counsel for the Res rrr,ndent Nos.l & 2; SRl. T.SANJAY RAO

¶33

Counsel for the Res rc,ndent No.3: PUBLIC PROSECUI'OR

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.SUR^ENDER.}

¶36

CRIM NA L REVISI o N^{CASENoS.641()F 2021AND} 70 0F 2022

¶37

COMMON ORDER: CRIMINAL REVISION C^ASE No.641OF^2o21

¶38

This Criminal Revision Case^{is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of} the Code of Criminal Procedure,^{1973 (for short 'Cr'P.C.) by the} petitioners - wife and daughter, to set aside^{the order dated 02.11.2021} passed in M,C.No.438 of 2016 by the learned^{AdditionalMetropolitan} Sessions Judge for the^Trial of^{lubileeHillsCar Bomb BlastCase-cum-} Additional Family Court-cum-)C(III^{AdditionalChiefJudge-cum-IX} ROOitionat Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶39

CRIMI AL REVISION CASE No. 70 0F²⁰²²

¶40

This Criminal Revision Case^{is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of} the Code of Criminal^{Procedure,L973 (for short 'Cr.P'C.) by the} petitioner - husband, to set aside the order dated^{02.11.2021passed in} M.C.No.438 of 2016 by the^{learned AdditionalMetropolitanSessions} Judge for the Trial of Jubilee^Hills car^{Bomb Blast case-cum-Additional} Family Court-cum-)CfiII Additional^{ChiefJudge-cum-IXAdditional} Metropolitan Sessions^{Judge, Hyderabad.}

¶41

Since the^{parties in both the Criminal Revision Cases are one and} the same, both the^{revision casesare heard together and disposed off by} way of this common^order.

¶42

...,r

¶43

For the st ko of convenience, the parties are her:inafter referred to as arrayed befo^,: the Trial Court.

¶44

The petit:rers therein are wife and son of nrslrondent therein. The petitioners h:ve filed a petition under Section 1,25 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.43B c,f ,IC16 before the learned Metrooolitan Se:;sions Judge, seeking monthl ' maintenance from the respordent i,nd the learned Sessions Judge rirs dlrected the respondent th,3rern t0 pity a monthly maintenance of^:ls.15,000/- per month to the 2ni peti :i(: ner'- son, from the date of orCe ;rnd dismissed the petition as filr as 1hr: 1''t petitioner - wife is concerner I ;rs he found that the l't petitioner rs^()a-nirg an amount of Rs.34,000/- p rr month. Aggrieved by the said order catel 02.11.202t passed by ther lrarned Sessions Judge, the petitioners - rvife and son have^preferre,d( riminal Revision Case No.6.{1 ot 20.21 and the respondent - hr stland has preferred Criminal Fievisicrn Cese No.70 of 2022.

¶45

Heard. Pe u:;ed the record.

¶46

Learned cc.rrrsel appearing for the petitionet.s -- ,vif,.r arrd son would submit that thel I't tetitioner - wife earning an amount of Rs.34,000/- per month does nc,t r1€,an that maintenance cannot br: grartt,d c,r reduced in the background ,f respondent - husband who is earnir3 Fs.1,00,000/per month, A:i sitern from the IT Returns of the responr.len: - husband,

¶47

I I

¶48

I I

¶49

the learned Sessions Judge ought to^{havegrantedmaintenancekeeping} in view the standard of life of^petitioners and also^{the growing costs.}

¶50

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing^{for the respondent} - husband would submit that on account of the acts of l't^petitioner -^wife, the respondent-husband was forced to^relocate to^Chennai and^at present, the respondent is^jobless. She further submits that the^question of directing a^person to^pay Rs.15,000/-^per month^{who is not having a} job is incorrect and prayed either to set aside the said order of granting maintenance or reduce the maintenance amount^{granted. Fudher,the} respondent - husband is also burdened with his^parents.

¶51

After passing of orders by the learned Sessions Judge, the situation has not changed according to both the learned counsel^for the^petitioners and the respondent.

¶52

At this^juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the^petitioners - wife and son would submit that the monthly fee of 2nd^petitioner - son^is around Rs.20,000/- and^prayed this Court to enhance the maintenance amount.

¶53

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not^find any infirmity in the order dated 02.11.2021^passed by the learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the claim of the 1$^petitioner - wife as^she is earning Rs.34,000/- per month and also^granting Rs.15,000/-^per

¶54

r.,

¶55

I tl

¶56

month to the ,l^{r petitioner} - son,^{in the prevalent r:irc lm;tances when} the case was le :itled.

¶57

However, ir the event of^{seeking enhancemertt of maintenance} granted to thr: . 'd petitioner - son, the same carl^{be irq tat:d before the} Court concernerl ty filing an^{applicationunder Sectio.l 127 of Cr.P.C.} seeking alteratic't in allowance.

¶58

Learnecl c runsel appearing^{for the petition3rs w{)Llld:;ubmitthat in} the event of dis nissing the^{revision case, the 1'r petrt otler will not have} an option to clai^{n maintenance.}

¶59

Needless c say, the 1ttpetitioner -^{wlfe ltas a rt,nredy in view of} the changed cit::umstances and^no orders^{need not tre prassedin the} present revision ::a se.

¶60

L4. According^y, both the Criminal^{Revision Cas:s are t:isplsedoff.}

¶61

Miscellane )Lrs Petitions,^{pending if} any,^{shallstardclo;ed.}

¶62

Sd/. M. MANJULA ]EPUTY-REGISTRAR

¶63

//TRUE COPY// tl)

¶64

SECTION OFFICER

¶65

To, l. The court of th: Additional Metropolitan sessions Judgr: 'cr l-rial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb B as;t Case cum Addihonal Family Couil -.XX ll Actditional Chief Judge -cr-m lX Additional Metropolitan Sessi6rs Jurlg _. llyderabad, ( With Records if an,')

¶66

Two CCs to F ltrlic Prosecutor, High Court for the lltate cf^-elangana at Hydera oad [1 U I]

¶67

i. One CCj to ful r;. Tekuru Swetcha, Advocate tOpUC l 4. One CC to Sr^'-.Sanjay Rao. Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to Sr^' P A6n'arya, Advocate tOpUCl^'

¶68

Two Cf) Copi :s Jgk kam

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 2106t2,023

.27=:
,a' a-- . \Y < ' lAre- L_),.
,j'
t'i .-'/
1g 'lt[ NN Ll
\ t ./ /
^<br>

¶73

COMMON JU )GMENT

¶74

CRLRC.Nos.641 ot 2021and 70 of 2022

¶75

DISPOSING OF BOTH THE CRIMINAI. REV'ISION CASES

¶76

,1
o' "t1
(_ -\ * (-

Smt Asha Latha and another v. Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Asha Latha and another v. Sri. Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan and another

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

Yelakanti Mallaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Vanamala Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Telangana

Meenakshi Sundaram Venkateshan Vs Smt. Asha Latha

Padam Chinna Bhumanna Vs The State of Telangna

Sunitha Bhansali Vs State of Telangana