The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order granting maintenance. The petitioner, the husband, was absent and failed to appear. The court found no infirmity in the trial court's assessment and dismissed the revision.
The criminal revision case is dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3208 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY . TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:8 89 0F 2009
Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.p.C against the dated 24.03.09 passed in M.C.No.311 of 2O07 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBB Case-cum_ Additional Family Court-cum-XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
Between
QYEDYAKHOOB SIRAJ, S/o Syed AbdutKareem, Occ: Business, Rl/o H.No.16-8-1 621A, Kaladera, Malakf et, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Counsel for the petitioner : SRl. NASEEM ARIA (NOT PRESENT)
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : SRI ALI FAROOeUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOUI(ABLtj Sl\11-. IUSTICEp.SREE SUDHA
Crl. R.C. No.889 of 2009
ORDER:
None apfrear-s lor thi, petitioner and there is no
representa tion. I ieard learnetl counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Perused the re< ord
')
send lnoney to mairrtain his farnily members. She also stated that rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 are studying intermediate and they require moncy for their educational expenses. The petitioner is dohg computer spare parts business and earning Rs.25,000/-. Respondent No.1, herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Petitioner himself examined as RW1 and one Syed Khundmeer Najeeb, examined as RW2. The trail Court af ter considering the entire oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, directed the petitioner herein to pay air amount of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 towards their monthly maintenance from the date of petition i.e., 12.12.2007. The maintenance amount was granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 till performance of their marriages. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred.
4 The petitioner stated that respondent No.1 is not interested to join his company and she voluntarily deserted him and he also
stated that tlrr'maintenance.:lain-rcc1 is excessive and, requested to set aside the impugncd or.lei
shall stand closecl
],
SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY-EEGISTRAR /iTRUE COPY// sEcrEPoFFrcER
To,
SB
&sq
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310212023
it;,'.r i
NB i. I
\t,!'1
t t
ORDER
CRLRC.No.889 of 2009
DISMISSING THE CRLRC WITHOUTCOSTS
g
.i
]
Ip
) 6s(
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order granting monthly maintenance to the wife and minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Qyed Yakhoob Siraj
Smt. Sadia Banu
Kum. Sana Mahaveen
Syed Khundmeer Najeeb
The State of Andhra Pradesh
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
