Dismissed

Perika Sandeep Kumar v. P. Sravanthi

Telangana HC26 Dec 2023CRP/1835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 151 CPC. The petitioner, claiming unemployment, challenged a trial court order awarding the respondent Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance for two children.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court.

Perika Sandeep Kumar Vs P. Sravanthi — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF DECE$/BER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{K. SUJANA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISIO^{N PETITIONNo:1835 OF 2022}

¶6

Petitron under Atlicle 227^{of the constitutionof lndia against the orderdated} 13.O5.2022 made in^{passed in 1A.No.1990/2019in oP.No.176712019on the file} of Court of the^{PrincipalJudge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil} Court at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Perika Sandeep Kumar, S/o^{Ramesh Kumar Aged42.yeas occ: Nil} R/o H.No.3-5-969/1m,^{Street No.5 Narayanaguda, Hyderabad.}

¶9

...Petitioner/RespondenURespondent

¶10

AND

¶11

P. Sravanthi, W/o^P. Sandeep^{Kumar Aged 37 years occ. employee} R/o H.No.5-12-134,^{Mangapuramcolony, Moulali, Hyderabad'}

¶12

...RespondenUPetitioner/Petitioner

¶13

lANo:1OF2 22

¶14

Petition under Section 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} grant stay the operation of the order^{passedin lA-no.1990/2019in oP no.1767 of} 2019 dt.13-5-2022 on the^{file of learned Principal Judge, Familycourt cum Addl.} Chief Judge, City Civil^{Court, at Hyderabad, pending the disposal of CRPin the} interest of^justice.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIM V HANUMANTHARAO}

¶16

Counsel forthe Sole^{Respondent:SRI C. KUMAR}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1835 of 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.O5.2022 in I.A.No.1990 of 2OI9 in O.P.No.1767 of 2019 passed by the Court of Iearned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additiona-1 Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is hled.

¶21

Heard Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on beha-lf of the respondent.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has lost his job and he is assisting his Mother in Kirana store business, as such, he is not able to pay maintenance. Therefore, prayed the Court to reduce the amount or to dismiss the petition by setting aside the order of the trial Court uide I.A.No. 1990 of 20 19

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in I.A.No.1990 of 2019, the trial Court ordered to pay maintenance to children only as the

¶24

¶25

't(3-/ C.R.P.l'o.183 5 of 2022

¶26

respondent is working in Social Welfare Department as a Data Entry Operator. According to the respondent, the trial Court awarded only Rs. 10,000/ - for two children but not Rs.1O,OO0/- for each children. He further submitted that no E.P is lrled against the order in I.A.No. l99O of 2019. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss this revision petition

¶27

Having regard to the riva-l submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the materia,l available on record, the trial Court disposed of I.A.No.1990 of 2Ol9 alter taking into consideration of assets and liabilities filed by both the parties and a-fter due enquiry, fixed the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to both the children. Accordingly, both the children are taking care by the respondent. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court in granting Rs. 10,OOO/- to the children. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court dated 13.05.2022 in I.A.No.1990 of 2OI9 in O.P.No.1767 of 2019 passed by the

¶29

¶30

s,$,J C.R P.No.l83 5 of 2022

¶31

I I i i

¶32

Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-

¶33

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There

¶34

shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if arry, shall stard closed.

¶36

SO/. V.HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Judge, Family-cum-Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad

¶41

One CC to SRl. M V HANUMANTHA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

One CC to SRl. C KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CD Copies

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2611212023

ORDER

CRP.No.1835 of 2022

<br>2 0 i-ri :,tl <br>J l
* * \t'
9c.SPA

¶51

DISMISSING THE CRP

¶52

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶53

@r la)5 I )+

Perika Sandeep Kumar v. P. Sravanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perika Sandeep Kumar v. P. Sravanthi

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

Kothakonda Narayana (Died) and 5 others Vs Keerthi Vijaya Laxmi and 11 others

K. Kumar Swamy Vs Atin Kumar Jaiswal

Sri. Kodimala Damodar Reddy Vs M/s. Kiran Bricks and Bricks

Syed Baquer Hussain Vs MrManinder Singh and another

Devaraju Nanda Rani Vs G.V. Sambashiva Rao

Vojjodula Shirisha , Latha Vs Vojjodula Pramod