Partly allowed

Choudharpally Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Feb 2023CRLRC/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Telangana High Court modified an order condoning delay in filing an appeal against interim maintenance in a Domestic Violence case. The court clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act warrants costs rather than payment of specified maintenance arrears. The pending appeal was directed to be disposed of on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified to direct payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- instead of 50% of maintenance. The first appellate Court was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within three months.

Choudharpally Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

|³²⁵⁴ )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 70 OF 2023

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30-12-2022, passed in Crl.M.P.No. 237 of 2022 in Crl.S.R.No. 9345 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Preferred against dated 04-05-2022 in Crl.M.P.No. 301 of 2021 in D.Y.C. No.^'191 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the lV Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Choudharpally Srikanth, S/o Ch.Rama Rao, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Rl/o H.No.6-2-229l1 , Plot No.28, Lalitha Nagar, Near Water Tank, Jillelaguda, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Yasaram Vanaja, W/o Choudharpally Srikanth, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, Fl/o H.No.12-11-5501311, Uppar Basthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad - 500 061.

¶14

Choudharpally Sahasra, D/ o Choudharpally Srikanth Aged about B^years, Occ. Minor Child, R/o H.No.12-1 1-5501311, Uppar Basthi, Namalagundu, Secunderabad - 500 061. (Rep. by her natural mother i.e., Respondent no.2)

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the orders^passed in Crl.M.P.No.237 oI 2022ⁱⁿ Crl.S.R,No.9345 of 2022 dated 30-12-2022 on the file of tvletropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad pending Crl.R.C.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.301 of 2021 dated 04-05-2022 in D.V.C.No.191 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble lV Metropol ita n [\ila^g i strate⁽ Traff i c l/o b ile Co urt) Hyderabad

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No: 1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent NOs 2 & 2: SRl. J. PRADEEP KIRAN

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.7O of 2023

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

'fhe prcsent revision is filed against the orders dated 30.12.2022 in Crl.ltvl.P No.237 ol 2022 in Crl.S.R.No.9345 of 2022 on the filc ol'lcarncd lvleLropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶27

The brief'lacts of the case are that a Domestic Violence Case (tbr short 'DVC') asainst the revision petitioner was filed vide DVC No. l9l ol'102 I belbre the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate ('l'raffic Mobite Court), Hyderabad. A detailed counter was lllcd by the revision petitioner before the trial Court. Cionsi<lering the entirc rnaterial on record, the leamed IV Metropolitan lvlagistrate (fraffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad has passed orde'rs granting interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to rcspondent No.l and Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No.2, shall be payable on or before 5'h of every succeeding month, from the date of filing the application. Further, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.15,000i- per month to the respondents towards rent for alternate aqornr-nodation on or bctbre thc 5th of every succeeding month.

¶28

¶29

Being aggrieved by the interim maintenance order in Crl.M P.No.30l of 2021 in DVC No.19l ol 2011. dated 04.05.2022, an appeal has been preferred by the revision pctitioncr bel-ore the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Flyclerabad along ri'ith a petition, seeking to condone the delay of (38 ) cla)s

¶30

'l-he leanred Metropolitan Sessions Judge, I ll,derabad has condoned the delay on the condition of payment o1'50!/o ol-the nraintcnance amount granted in favour of the respondcnts, u,ithin l5 tlal's fi'om the date of the order and fufther diret:ted tht' oillce to nunrber the appeal, if otherwise in order, only or-r pa) n1.n1 o1' 500/o of the amount by the petitioner to the respondcnts. Being aggrier"ed by the said order, the present revision casc is lllccl

¶31

It is the contention of the leamed counsel 1br tl-rc rcvision pclitioner that instead of imposing costs for condoning thc dclay of' 38 da1,s, the learned Metropolitan Sessions jLrdge. IJ1'dcrabad dirccted the Petitioner to deposit 50o/o of thc anrount arrarclccl. therc-tirre. praved to set aside the orders olthe lcarrr.'c1 Nlctropolitar Sessions Judge, Hyderabad

¶32

¶33

On the other hand, the leamed counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court has rightly awarded maintenance to respondents and as there are huge arrears in payment of the said anrounL, the first appellate Couft has rightly directed for pavment p1 -i()70 01' the maintenance amount and thcre is no error rrr irregLrlarity in the order.

¶34

In this case, it is to be seen that the petition was flled undcr Section 5 o1- the limitation Act to condone the delay of 38 days in lrling the DVC, but it is not a petition for interim suspensior.r, so rs t() irnpose conditions for payment of certain alnount o1conrpensation. Inasmuch as it is a petition under Section 5 ol the Iirrritation Act, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have irnposed costs rvhile allowing the petition.

¶35

Therefbre, the impugned order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad is modified to read as, "the delay is concloned on payment ofcosts of Rs.15,000/- to the respondents on nr belore 17 .03.2023". Fufther, on producing the acknowledgn.rent in ploolof payrnent olcosts, the office of the learned Metropolitarr Scssic'rr.rs Judge, Hyderabad is directed to number the appeal.

¶36

¶37

It is contended by thc learned courrsel lbr thc respondents that the DVC was filed in tlre year 2021 and there is firrancial necessity for the respondents lrerein to lead their [ives and prayed to direct the learned Metropolitan Sessions .Iudge, I Iyderabad to dispose of the appeal at thc ealliest

¶38

Considering the subrnissions ol both the corrnsel, as the appeal is filecl against granting the intcrinr ntaintcnancc, the learned Metropolitan Sessiorrs .luclge, I I),derabad is directed to dispose of the appeal on nrclits u,ithin a periocl ol'thrce uronths from the date olreceipt olthis order'

¶39

I 1. With the said observations. thc revision cuse is clisposed of.

¶40

Pending miscellaneous applications, it' anr,. shall stand

¶41

closed.

¶42

,TRUE COPY'

¶43

Sd/- M. MANJULA DEPUTY REGITTRAR .t

¶44

SECTIONVFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge, Hyderabad}

¶47

The lV^{Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court)' Hyderabad'} 3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

One CC to SRl.^{P. VAMSHEEDHAR REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI}

¶49

One CC to SRI^{J. PRADEEPKIRAN,Advocate[OPUC]}

¶50

Two CD CoPies

¶51

vH -r CI

HIGH COURT

GAC, J

DATED: 2210212023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.70 of 2023

'i r: STAI€:
c<
s ? tli[$ E?]
oil
.i
<_- .
.r,/

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE CRL.R.C

¶59

<br>

Choudharpally Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Choudharpally Srikanth v. The State of Telangana

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

Mrs. Shamim Banu Vs Mrs. Shaik Noor Jahan and Anothers

M/s. Sanrachna (India) Inc., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Butti Kumaraswamy Vs The State of Telangana

P.Madhava Reddy Vs P. Raji Reddy and Another

M/S India Extrusion Vs the Asst., Commissiner (Prosecution)

Smt.K.Yashodara Vs The State of Telangana