Dismissed

A.Nagarjuna v. StateState of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023CRLRC/86/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging the dismissal of an appeal against an ex parte interim maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court held the ex parte order was correctable only via appeal under Section 29 of the Act, not an application to set it aside. A direction was issued to conclude the Final Magistrate inquiry within three mont

What did the court decide?

Revocation of interim maintenance rejected. Case remanded to Final Magistrate to conclude inquiry within three months.

A.Nagarjuna Vs StateState of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 86 OF 2023

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 R/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Crl.A.No. 642 ot 2017 on the fite of the Court of the Xl Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District preferred against the Order dated 08.03.20'16 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 183 of 2016 in DVC.No. 4 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Nagarjuna, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, RL/o H.No.4-1-83, kowkoor, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶9

...REVISION PETITIONERYAPPELLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

StateState of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

¶12

Smt. P.Santoshi @ Pavani, W/o A.Nagarjuna, Aged 32 years, Occ. House Wife R/o H.No. 1-127, Nacaharam Village, Toopran (M), Medak District

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶14

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crl.MP.No.183l2O16 in DVC .No.4/2016 on 08/03/2016 pending disposal of the above revision petition, in the interests of justice

¶16

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2023

¶17

Petition unde {iection 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{ilr lhe circumstances} stated in the affida' it filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be} pleased to reduce tt e maintenance amount granted ir Crl.lrlP^{18312016 in DVC} 4t2016 on 08.03.:10'6 to 30% and to^grant 6 months^{time:o clear the arrears,} pending disposal of "re' above Revision petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Peti ioner : M/S. PARIMALA PARIGI

¶19

Counsel for the Res )ondent No.1^{:Sri S. GANESH,ASSISTI,NTPUBLIC}

¶20

F,ROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel for the Res rondent^{No.2 : Sri VENKATESHDESHPANDT:}

¶22

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶23

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{G. ANUPAMACHAKRAVARTHY} CRIMTNAL RE^{VISIONCASE No.86 of 2023}

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This revision is filed against^{the order dated 17.05.2022 in} Crl.A.No.642 of^{2011 on the file of XI Additional District and} Sessions Judge^{(Fast Track Court), R'R' District, which arose out} ln of the order dated^{08.03.2016in Crl.M.P.No.183 of 2016} DVC.No.4 of 2016^{passed by the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate,} Cyberabad at Medchal.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for^{petitionerand Sri S. Ganesh,} leamed Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingfor respondent No'l} and Sri Venkatesh^{Deshpande,learned counsel appearingfor} respondent No.2.

¶27

The revision petitioner^{is the husbandof respondentNo'2'} The above DVC was filed by^{respondent No.2 herein, wherein,} Crl.M.P.No.183 of 2016^{was filed seekinginterimmaintenance'} The trial Court passed ex^{parte order on 08.03.2016in the said} Crl.M.P., granting interim^{maintenanceof Rs.15,000/- per month} to petitioner No.1 and^{Rs.10,0001per month totheir}

¶28

¶29

¶30

c^.t('. .l (t tI (.i,t.86 o.l ?023

¶31

childipctitirrn fr No.2. Bcing aggrieved by the sarne. tlre l,etitioner herein las Il :<^{(lrl.MP.No.326} o1'2016, seeking tc set rrside the sa id cx par-1c^rr-rlcl

¶32

I1 rs r re specific contention of the learnr)( lounsel lbr rcvision pcl.iti .)1 er before the lowcr appellate C()ul1 that Ire docs not have thc knoylt,dgc o1- hling the DVC, as no surnmor s ,,yer c serr.ed on hirn or orr ri:, parents and that tltc trial Court has p rs:;ecl cx pafte order daterl⁽⁾ l.(13.2016 rvithout giving any opporlunity to hirn and that hc canr( to know about thc said ex pirrte ordct only on 29.04.2016. lr is contended that his non-appeal'antc bclbre the Court or 0t,.0^i.;10 l6 u,as neither intentional nor witnt)1, brrt due to non-se r,tcc^(r s tnlmons It is conlended that hc was nr t given any oppoltlrrrit1, 1( present his casc. IIis further contention s that he is u'orking in a 1,f i,"'21s Cornpany o1 a monthly sa1arl, o - lls.i0,000i, out of rr hich. rt lras to rnaintain his old-aged puretrls ;rrul nreet his travellinlr. c.{[) )uses. Thelelbre, hc prayed to ser asid,r rhe ex parte order darcrl 0(.0 1.2016

¶33

¶34

GAC, J Crl.R-C-No.86 o12023

¶35

A detailed counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.2 before the trial Court contending that there is no provision to set aside the ex parte order. It is contended that the petitioner herein has studied MBA in United Kingdom and is working as a Senior Financial Analyst and is getting a salary of Rs.10 Lakhs per annum.

¶36

The lower appellate Court, after considering the rival contentions, has come to the conclusion that there is ample power to the trial Court to pass ex parte interim orders granting maintenance and that the said orders are appealable orders and that the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte orders, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

¶37

On perusal of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is evident that there is ample power to the Cou( to grant ex parte interim orders, against which, the aggrieved pafty can file appeal. In the present case, the petitioner, without preferring appeal at relevant point of time, has filed application to set aside the ex parte orders vide Cr1.M.P.No.326 of 2016, which

¶38

¶39

G,I(', J (it ll C.N'.86 ttl )02.t

¶40

\as disniisse t .rn 13.02.2017. llowever, subscquerl o the ordcr dated I 1.0.1..⁽⁾¹⁷ in Crl.MP.No.l26 of 2016, lretiti,rnor has Illcd al)pcal Lrein!^{t.'rl.A.No.642} ol'2017 against the ordt:r clatcd 03.0i.2(r16. lrki n_q thc similar grounds that lrave lre,:n takcn in ('rl.MP. \o 3i (r of 201(r. It is pcrtinent to note that tlrc orcier dated lf .02.2(t11 ii not at all challengcd. The learrred lorv:r appellate .lLrdge disn.riss.xi the said appeal by order dated^{''7.1)5.1()22}

¶41

St:cti on I of thc Protection of Womcn Iirrn r ttomcstic Violencc A:t, 2()05 gives ample power to the Coult lc plss ex pafte interiur ord,rn.^-lhcrctbre, the contention of thc petitrc,nel that he was nol a i, )n oppoftunity to putforlh his case , callnot b() consider,-'d. ,a drnittedly, it is only thc interim rrairrterra rce grantcd b5, thc Cou"t rnd the said ordcr is an appealablc olci:r , ttereforc, thc revisron p'titioncr ought to havc filed an appeal rrnler Section 29 o1'Lhc Act, hrrllcnging the saicl order. Insteacl o1'ctaltenging the saicl ordc:r', the pctitioner has filcd a petition befrrrc th: l;arrc Court sccking to set tsidc the ex parlc ordcr, which was rightl.,dismisscd by tlre^(-lour- relow. Since thc order dalcd l.\ tt2.2917 ir', Crl.MP.No..l2^, ol'2016 is not challcnged, ithas uttirin,:d finatity

¶42

¶43

¶44

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.86 of 2023

¶45

¶46

For the aforesaid roasons, thore are no lnorits in this revision,

¶47

which is accordingly dismissed. Since the DVC is of the year 2016, the leamed Magistrate is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by considering the counter affidavit as well as all the documents

¶48

relied on by the revision petitioner herein

¶49

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶50

closed.

¶51

Sd/-T.SRIN AS DEPUTY REGI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xl Additional^{District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga} Reddy District.

¶56

Z. Tfre >C(t Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal,RangaReddy} District.

¶57

Two CCs to the^{Public Prosecutor, High courtfor the stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶58

a. One CC to M/S.^{PARIMALA PARlGl, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to Sri^{VENKATESH DESHPANDE, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶60

Two CD CoPies Njb plp >.

t'l

HIGH COURl

DATED:0710612023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.S(; of 2023

za ..<br>a_ 4,'<br>/1.
) 2
aJ ,s
t
:':) t.t
o {)
-et,,
2 vz') .//,
.i:::;:,1

¶67

DISMISSING THE CIIIMINAL REVISION CASE.

¶68

{r,
^ .b

A.Nagarjuna v. StateState of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nagarjuna v. StateState 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

Joga Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Telangana and Another

K. Gopala Krishnan Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Muduganti Srinivas Reddy Vs Kotha Venkata Rao and Another

Pokala Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

Dasari Hanumanthu Vs Smt. Patnam Ramulamma