Dismissed

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., v. Catari Subrahmanyam, Hyd. and Anr, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC1 Aug 2023CRLRC/816/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC concerning a dismissal of a maintenance application, the High Court dismissed the petition. Noting the petitioner's consistent absence and a prior Supreme Court holding on merits despite non-prosecution, the Court observed the petitioner earned sufficient income to maintain herself.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed; the underlying order of the Family Court is affirmed. Miscellaneous pending petitions are treated as closed.

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., Vs Catari… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:⁸¹⁶ OF²⁰¹³

¶8

Revision filed under Section 397 &401 of CrPC against^{the order dated26-02-} 2013 in M-C.No. 158 of 2011 on the file of the Judge,^{FamilyCourt at L.B.Nagar,} Ranga Reddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt.A.Ganga Bhavani, W/o. C.Subrahmanyam,^{OccPrivate Employee, R/o.C/o.} A.Prabhakar, Flat No. 306, Swastik Residency,^{Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.} ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Catari Subrahmanyam ., Wo. Catari Ponnaiah,^{RJo. Vijetha Apartments,} above SBl, Shankarmutt, Vidyanagar,^{Hyderabad -} 44

¶13

State of A.P., rep.by the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad.} ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRt. V. V. N. NARASIMHAM^{(NOT PRESENT)} Counsel for the Respondent.'l: None SRt VTZARATH ALI/ Counsel for the Respondent.2: ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶17

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.816 OF 2013

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the Order passed in M.C.No. 158 of 2011, dated 26.02.2013 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 30.11.2021, 16.06.2023, 11.O7.2023 and 25.07.2023. Even today also there is no representation for the petitioner. Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State is present.

¶21

A perusal of the record shovvs that the Revision pertains to the year 2013. Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in^..Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Utter Pradesh',, wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits. So far as the merits are concerned, this revision is filed aggrieved by the Order passed in M.C.No.158 of 2011, dated 26.02.2013 on

¶22

/ /

¶23

¶24

the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences, the learned Court below had dismissed M.C.No.158 of 2011 stating that the petitioner was doing job at A.P. Tralsco on outsourcing basis and earning Rs.9,SOO/- per month and also the petitioner is only daughter to her parents who are the retired employees and therefore, the question of maintenarce of the petitioner does not arise.

¶26

This Court upon taking into consideration the material available on record and also the order passed by the learned Court below in M.C.No.158 of 2011 is of the opinion that the petitioner is earning Rs.9,500/- per month and has got sufficient maintenance to maintain herself besides being provided maintenance for her. Therefore, this Court is not inclined entertain this criminal revision case

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶28

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald closed.

¶29

SD/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcTto OFFICER

¶30

To,

¶31

1 The Judge Family court Act, L. B. Nagar Ranga Reddy District.

¶32

2 One CC to SRI. V. V. N. NARASIMHAM ,Advocate tOpUCl 3 Two CCs to the ASSISTANTPUBLTC PROSECUTOR , High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶33

4 Two CD Copies

¶34

TL c

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10812023

ORDER

'r-
a
oJ 2 5 ST P flm ,i- i.i
(-) t
I
r) l: s -a?'

¶39

CRLRC.No.816 of 2013

¶40

DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶41

@"oo Str

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., v. Catari Subrahmanyam, Hyd. and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.a.Ganga Bhavani, Kukatpally, Hyd., v. Catari Subrahmanyam, Hyd. and Anr, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kothakonda Saritha, Nalgonda Dist. Vs Raghavendra Kothakonda, Hyd and Ano

Smt. Savithri, Vs Satyanarayana Thakre

M/S V.S.N. Plastics, Hyd and Anr. Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P., Hyd and Anr.

Kolipaka Raju, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

N.Rajender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Roopa Volety and Another Vs State of Ap., and Another