Dismissed

D. Madhavi Devi v. S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Telangana HC13 Apr 2023CRP/2982/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to summon the bank manager for past account details. The Court found no error as the respondent had already disclosed recent statements and was cross-examined, and the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to summon respondent No.2 to produce bank particulars for the last five years was dismissed.

D. Madhavi Devi Vs S.K.Srinivasa Raju — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[²⁵⁸⁶ ]

¶2

I I I I I I I i

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2982 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated'. 21-11-2022 in l.A.No. 799 of 2022 in O.P.No.974 ol 2017 on the fite of the Court of the Judge, I Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

D. Madhavi Devi, W/o S.K.Srinivasa Raju, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o Flat No.307, Phase-|, Metro Palm Grow Apartments Sirmajiguda, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

1 S.K.Srinivasa Raju, S/o D.V.Thirupathi Raju, Aged 51 years, Occ. Business, R:/o Flat No.201, Krishna Vamsi Residency, Vijayanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Branch Manager, lnduslnd Bank Ltd., S.R.Nagar Branch, plot No.76, 2nd Floor, Vivekananda Nagar, K.P.H.B., Hyderabad.^-

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.P.No.974 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, I Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.V. RAGHAVAN

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI M.p. KASHYAP

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: None Appeared

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

q':

)

l-l I w

I I

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.NAVEEN RAO}

¶28

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO.2982 0F 2022}

¶29

ORDER^:

¶30

Petitioner^{herern file ci I.A.No.799of 2022 in O P No 974 of 2Ol7} pending in^{thc Court of IAdditional Family Court at Hyderabad} I.A'No'Tggot2022isfiledunderorderXVlRule14readwithSection 15 1 of^{Cocie ,;f CivilProccciure(CPC)with aprayer tosummon} respondcnt^{No.2 i.e, BrernchManager to produce the particuiars of l"'} respondent^{for the last llve \ cars pertaining to Bank Account with the} Indus^{Incl Bank, S R.N:rg:rr Ilr-anch,Hyderabad The rrial Courthaving} considered^{thc respective submissions,found that the respondents} ftave already^{filed bank account slatement for the period fromOl 04 '2022to} gO.lO.2O22. The Court observed that^{petitioner has not disclosed} sufhcient^{cause or reason to call for the documents.The trial court} also noticed^{that particulars ofHDFC Bank and the income tax} statement^{were obtained and respondent was cross examinedon those} documents.

¶31

l,earned^{counselfor the petitioner soughtto contend that there} was suppression^{of income earncd by the 1st respondentand he has not} disclosed^{his income in thc incometax returns. This courtrepeatedly} asked learned counsel to clarily^{as to what is the basis of his statement} that the l't resyrondent^rvas having more^{income than what was}

¶32

disclosed in the^{incometax returnsand whether peLitionerhzrs} complained to the^{incometax department about alleged non-disclosure} of income earned^{by the l"t respondentduring the last five yearsas} sought to tre^{contended,Learned counscl isunable to say how} petitioner has come to^{know aboutallegedincome earned by the I''} respondent more^{than what is disclosed.As noticed by the trial Court} the HDFC bank^{particulars and the incometax statement were already} filed and the^{l st respondentwas cross examined.}

¶33

[n view of the facts noted above,^{I see no error in the order of thc} trial Court warranting^{interferenceby this Court. Civil Revision Petition} is accordingly dismissed.^{Pending miscellaneous applications,if any,} shall stand closed.

¶34

//TRUE^COPY//

¶35

Sd/. C.^PRAVEEN KU!,IAR ASSISTANT^REG 'z** ,{,, SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 The Judge,^{I Additional Family Court' at Hyderabad} 2 One CC to^{SRI V.V' RAGHAVAN'Advocate [OPUC]} 3 One CC^{to SRl. M' P' KASHYAP' Advocate[OPUCI}

¶38

Two CD^CoPies kam .J VH

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1310412023

.rt II.
t'.' -
?)

ORDER

r'l

CRP.No.2982 ot 2022

THE CIVIL REVISON PETITION IS DISMISSED

¶46

D. Madhavi Devi v. S.K.Srinivasa Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Madhavi Devi v. S.K.Srinivasa Raju

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

M/s. Deccan Wine House and Amrit Bar and Restaurant,Partnership firm Vs Sri Radhakrishna and 2 others

Dr. Rabindranath C Vs Mr. L. Lalitha Shanker

Smt. Bano Begum Vs Sri S. Praveen Kumar

Mr. Mohd Faheemuddin Vs Mr. Mujeeb Ur Rehman

Mr. Mumtaz Shareef Vs Syed Shafiullah

Chowrala Santosh Kumar and 4 Others Vs Akula Shobha Rani and 10 Others