Allowed

G.Narendar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 3 Others

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023CRLRC/90/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court set aside the trial court order granting Rs. 4,000 maintenance per month. The Court held that since a decree for maintenance was already passed in a prior suit, the subsequent application for fresh maintenance was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case allowed; order of trial court granting Rs. 4,000 maintenance to each petitioner quashed.

G.Narendar, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 90 OF 2010

¶8

Revision filed under Sebtion 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the^order dt.30.11.2009 in M.C.No. 321 of 2008 on the file of the^{Court of Addl.} Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum^Addl. Family Court cum XXlll Addl. Chief Judge,^Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

G.NARENDAR,, S/o. G.Satyanarayana, Senior Assistant, At Priyadarshini Jurala Project, Nandimalla Camp, Athmakur Taluq, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶11

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A.P., REP BY PP., rep by Public^{Prosecutor, High} Court of A.P., Hyderabad

¶14

.... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶15

Smt. G.Anitha,, Wo. G.Nerendar, Housewife, R/o.^{H.No.6-1-443,} D-Class, Khairatabad, Near Khairatabad Library,^Hyderabad.

¶16

G.Harshini,, D/o. G.Nerendar, Student R/o.^{H.No.6-1-443,D-} Class, Khairatabad, Near Khairatabad Library, Hyderabad

¶17

G.Dinesh,, S/o. G.Nerendar, Student R/o. H.No. 6-1-443,^D-Class, Khairatabad, Near Khairatabad Library, Hyderabad

¶18

(Res. 3 & 4 are being minors, rep by Res.2 as their mother and^natural

¶19

NDENTS/PETITIONERS.

¶20

!.A. NO: 1OF 20 1( ()RLRCMP. NO: 133 OF 201t1)

¶21

Petition ur d-.r Section 151 CPC prrayirg trat in the circumstances sla,:rl in the affidavit filed in support cf .he^petition, the High Court may br-. pleased to stay all further proceedirgs including the executior o['l'rr; order dt.30.'1 1.2009 passed in^t;l.C.No. 321 of 2008 on the file ol tlre Court of Addl. l/etropolti.an Sessions Judge for the Trail of JHOBrltl cum Addl. Family Court oum X.(lll Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabr:c prending disposal of the Criminal Rr;vision Case.

¶22

Counsel for the P irtitioner :SRl. SRINIVAS CHOWDARY Counsel for the F r:s;pondent No.1: Additional Publi,: l)rc'secutor Counsel forthe Fr::;pondents 2to 4: SRI G V RV llE:DDY

¶23

The Court madr: I re following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDIIA

¶25

CRIMINAI REVISIoN CASE No.9O of 2OlO

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is hled against the order dated 30.11.2009 in M.C.No.32 1 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC Cum Additional Family Court cum XXII - Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the .learned Counsel for the respondents absent.

¶29

Perusal of the record shows that M.C.No.321 of 2008 was filed by the respondent No.2 / petitioner/ wife along with her minor children against the petitioner/ respondent. The trial Court considering the {indings and arguments of both sides granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners from the date of the hling the petition and also granted an amount of Rs.2,OOO/- towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ respondent/ husband preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

The petitioner/ respondent/husband stated that respondents/ petitioners have already hled a suit in O.S. No.35

¶31

¶32

¶33

of 2OO0 l;cfolt t he Family Court for grant of mainle:^{tance and} thc Fermiv⁽ r't alter considering the arguments o'l,r>ttr sidr:s, grantr:d mzrin errance of Rs.3O0O/- per morLth ir. r11 lo the respondenls, e'rern and it became hnal as, r,o trltpezrl r.r'as preferred zlg{) n st it. As such, hling of Illaittten,Lttc: Case seeking rnainl r ance is not maintainable. Tht' trial C turt ought to have r;onsir c^-erl the amount aurarded by the F-arri v C)ourt in O.S.No.35 of⁽¹⁰⁽⁾ and the^pet itioner/ respon<len t t arl a.so filed thc detzrils . arnounts paid b1' him in¹ is ccr.t:tte^- dated 20.03.2()O!). liLrbsequent to passing of the rltcrt:c^,n O-S.No.35 of 2000, bc^rl the parlies ente red into Memo etn,lum^of Understan<lir tl IJe is also har.ing the age^{o1<1 partI.t} -s,^whoare suffering lr or :hronic diseascs and he has to^{mzLrr Ltain them.} Therefore. :e, Lrested the Court to set aside lhe ordel of the trial Court.

¶34

Thortgl the pctrtioner herein state([^t.ha I th:y have entered i| tc i,,lemorandum of Understandtng^s rl. se(luent^to passing ol d c ree in O.S.No.35 of 20O0, it vras n,rt filt d belore this Court.⁽ n pcrusal of the decree in O.S.l o.35 cl^{2000 dated} 02.1 1.2001^:J :arl1. shou,s that amount of Rs;.3O0O/^{- pr:r monlh} rvas grant -:d i r all to^t he petit ioncrs lrom the^{dzlr t: of liling the} suit i.e . 20. i' .1999 lrl the^{cross examinatirn of F' W.} /mother

¶35

¶36

¶37

who is natural guardian of the minor children, she admitted that she was receiving maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month. Though she stated that petitioner/ respondent was getting a salary of Rs.26,O0O/- per month, she has not filed any document to prove the income of the petitioner herein. The petitioner/ respondent stated that he is getting net salary of Rs. 10,560/-per month and he is working in APSEB. The petitioner/ husband mainly raised an objection for filing the maintenance case after granting maintenance in O.S.No.35 of 2000.

¶38

Admittedly, suit was filed by the respondent/wife along with her minor children for grant of maintenance and the trial Court granted maintenance in her favour in the year 2000. It seems that after passing the decree for an amount of Rs.3,00O/p.m, they entered into an agreement for an amount of Rs.4,00O/- p.m and the petitioner/ husband was also paying the said amount. But, again in the year 2008, respondent/wife filed al application claiming the maintenance amount, but she has not hled any record to prove the income of the deceased. Once the maintenance is granted by the trial Court on merits, it is for the wife to file an application for enhaniement of maintenance, but not for maintenance again. As such, the Maintenance Case

¶39

¶40

¶41

filcd br, lrr-;-^j_self is r-rol milintainable, brrt th,r trail Court ll,ithorrt r or sidering Lhc saime, granted ulalrrlcnilncc of Rs.4,0O)/ ,. n to each ol- the petitioners i.l in lotal Rs.12,O,lO,' , rn ernd also thc legal cxpcnses r,1- Rs.2,O0O/_ r,i'hich is cr ro L( olrs and is liablc to be set aside.

¶42

In th< i 'sult, the Criminal Revisron Casr: is allru,ed br,, setting rr sir lc, l e order of the trial Court in M.C.No..- 21 of 200g. dated 3(1. I 1.1 C,lg

¶43

IV ir; c ilaneous pctitions, if anv, pc,rding, ;hall stand

¶44

closed

¶45

Sd/..I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

\ti

SllrilTlON OFFICER

To,

The Additicni)l Nletropolitan Sessions ,udge^ror the Trial of JHCBBC cLrn Additioinal Family court curn XXll Additional Chief Judge, Hydr rabad.

¶51

One CC to ittl. SRINIVAS CHOWDARY l\dvocale ICPUC]

¶52

One CC tr> {,F.1. G V R V REDDY Advocate, [OPU:)]

¶53

Two CCs tc the ADDITIOINAL PUBLIC PFIOSEC;UTOR, High Court for tht $itate of Telanagana, at Hyde'abac. OLJTI .

¶54

Two CD^(lc l:ies

HIGH COURT

DATED:25l0 41202',1

ORDER

CRLRC.No.9O of iltt10

¶59

..:--
!r S r t'
, .' o.
/ ) I 2 ,ltll 2$ o-'_l'1
<br>,/

¶60

ALLOWING THE I]RIMINAL R.C.

¶61

A-fi4
Ir
-<-= L_
)11 7-3
,.<br>

G.Narendar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narendar, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bairi Rakesh Kumar Vs Perumalla Sammaiah

M. Sridhar Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Dr. DayankaDukkipati Vs Dr. Mandava Arum Shyam

Chand Chaush Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Ataullah, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs. Vs the State of a.P., through P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath