The High Court dismissed a Criminal Revision petition challenging a maintenance order as infructuous. The Court held that the proceedings are covered by its own earlier order stating revision is not maintainable against interlocutory orders.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.
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.
[25ss ]
IN THE I{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIM INAL REVI ION CASE NO:941 OF 2011
Criminal Revision Case under SeCtions 397 RyW 4Ol of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 08-03-201.1 made in crl.Mp.No 1022 of 2O1O in crl.RP SR.No.1186 of 2010 on the file of the court of the prl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy Preferred against the Order dated.10-08-2010 passed in M.c. No.1 of 2008 on the file of the court of the First class Magistrate at siddipet , Medak District.
Between:
l.lgi:!9!ly .Yadagiri,.S/o Laxmaiah,Labour,R/oKukunoor pailyViilage, Kondapaka Mandal, Medak District. ...pEflTloNER
ANO
...RESPONOENTS
l.A. NO: I OF 20t1lCRL CMP. NO:1,!ll 20111
Petition under Section 151 cpc prayinE that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pteased to suspend the order dt.10-08-2010 in MC.No. 1 of 2008 on the fite of J.F.C.M., at Siddipet, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. K GOVTND Counsel fo, the Respondents No. Ito3:SRl,t RAVI DRA BABU counsel for the Rcspond'nts No'il: sRl " Ta'$#r;a, ,uBlrc pRosEcuroR
The Court made the fo owing: ORDER
,-/
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISIOI CASE No.94l OF 2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is frled challenging the order passed by the learned appellate court vide its order dated 8.3.2011 in Cr.No.lO22l2OlO in Crl.R.P.Sr.No. 1186/2010 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medal< at Sangareddy challenging the order passed in M.C.No.1 of 2OO8 dated 10.08.2010 by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Siddipet, Medak District.
2
challenging this maintenance,even if it is consideredby the revision Court,perhaps itcannotwithstandin the Court of law' However, this Court determining the aspectof order whichis under challenge is of the view that tfiecondone delay petition of 16 days hled by the petitioner would nothave been dismissedby the appellate Court. However, this Courtis not inclinedto interfere wi.th the present application inthe Revision jurisdiction'
3
petitioner is at liberty to work-out the remedies as available
under law.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
I
sdtK.sAtLESHt DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To
sEcnoN dincen
ADK
Prnq.
HIGH COURT
DATED:04/08t2023
ORDER
CRLRC.No.941 ot 2011
:. iAIir
,/.
1:
i:.
12 stI lm
't'
- ; . 1 1t ,, ,,t1li',: '-;-t'
" - --, --:;.i'z'
DISMISSING THE CRLRC AS INFRUCTUOUS
@rn...
}s\q?-j'
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Lligally Yadagiri
The State of Andhra Pradesh
E.V. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
