Dismissed

Kambam Venkat Reddy , Venkaiah v. the State of Ap., and 2 Others

Telangana HC14 Jul 2023CRLRC/894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision Case No. 894 of 2013, this Court dismissed the revision seeking to set aside a lower court order awarded maintenance in a domestic violence case. Relying on an earlier 2022 order holding revisions against interlocutory orders not maintainable, the Court refused to entertain the matter on merits despite the petitioner's non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case dismissed; petitioner at liberty to workout remedies available under law.

Kambam Venkat Reddy , Venkaiah Vs the State of Ap., and… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 894 0F 2013

¶7

Revision filed Under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order^dated 18-04-2013 passed in Crl.MP.No.3201 of 2012 in DVC.No.2/2009 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class I\ragistrate at Huzurnagar-

¶8

Between

¶9

Kambam Venkat Reddy , Venkaiah, S/o Janakiram Reddy,^Occ Section^Engineer (Construction) office at Dy.Chief Engineer South Central Railway Jagityal .....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Karimnagar Diskict.

¶10

AND

¶11

u^{1. The State of AP., Rep by its PublicProsecutor, High Court building}

¶12

, Hyderabad.

¶13

Kambham Sandhya, Wo Venkat Reddy @^{Venkanna,occ Household,Rl/o} Jagityala Village Karimnagar District Now fuo Her^{Parents House at} Nereducherla V and M Nalgonda District.

¶14

Kambam Karthik, S/o Venkat^Reddy @ Venkaiah^{Minor Rep by Respondent} No.2 being a Natural Guardian and lvlother.

¶15

.....RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶16

I.A.NO: 4 OF 2013^(CRLRCMP. NO: 207 2 0F 20131

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to permit the petitioner/party-in-person to amend the Crl.R.C.No. 894 of 2013.

¶18

CRL.RC.(MP).NO:1 396 OF 201 3)

¶19

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleasedto} stay the operation of the order dt¹ 8.04.2013^{passed in Crl.MP.No.3201 12012 in} DVC No.2/2009 on the file of the court of the JFCM., at^{Huzurnagar, pendingthe} Crl.RC.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.M.S.V.S.SUDHA RANI^{(PARTY'IN-PERSON)(not present)} Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : ASSISTANT^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR} Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 :^NONEAPPEARED The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.894 OF 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 18.04.2013 passed in Crl.M.P.No.32O1 of 2Ol2 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2OO9 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Ciass at Huzurnagar

¶25

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and unofficial respondents. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State

¶26

A perusal of record shows that there was no represbntation on behalf of the petitioner on 13.06.2023, O4.O7.2023 and 12.07.2023. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Since, the matter pertains to the year, 2Ol3 this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter on merits.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.08.2005. They were blessed with a baby boy, who is respondent No.2. The petitioner-husband subjected respondent Nos.2 and 3 to acts of domestic violence. Therefore, respondent

¶28

¶29

No.2-wife preferred D.V.C. before the Court below seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The Court below vide order dated lA.O4.2Ol3 in Crl.M.P.No.32Ol of 2Ol2 in D.V.C.No.2 of 2OO9 held as follows:

¶30

"Heard. Perused the material available on record. In this case Honble High Court grarrted Rs.5,0OO/-, Rs.4,000/- with regard to first ald second respondent. Total aJnount of Rs.2,7O,OO0/-

¶31

Respondent is directed Rs.2,70,000/- on or before 10.05.2013 other wise wa-rrant will be issued".

¶32

As an amount of Rs.2,7O,0OO/IS due by the petitioner towards the maintenance arnount payable to respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Court below passed a conditiona-l order stating that, warrant to be issued against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision.

¶33

This Court vide order dated 27.04.2022 in Cr1.R.C (SR) No.3l98 of 2022 held that as against an interlocutory order, a Revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable.

¶34

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision at this stage, as the proceedings hereunder are covered by the Order dated27.O4.2022 in Crl.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 passed by this Court.

¶35

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to workout the remedies as available under law.

¶36

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶37

Sd/.K.SAILESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECflOI6FFICER

1 The Judicial^{tvlagistrate of First Classat Huzurnagar (WithRecords,if any)'} Two CC's to Public Prosecution,^{High Court for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad.^(OUT).

¶42