Dismissed

Gandla Nageshwar Rao v. Gandla Laxmi

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023CRP/715/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the trial Court's grant of interim maintenance. The High Court found no infirmity in the lower Court's order, balancing the petitioner's income against the respondent's reported earnings and expenses.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, confirming the order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month and legal expenses of Rs. 20,000.

Gandla Nageshwar Rao Vs Gandla Laxmi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁰⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 715 OF²⁰²³

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of^{lndiaaggrievedby the order} dated 06.02.2023 in l.A. No. 580^{ot 2019in HMOP No. 7 of 2019 on the file of the} Court of the Senior Civil Judge,^{Bodhan, Nizamabad.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gandla Nageshwar Rao, s/o^{G.Harrmandlu,..aged.. about} 99^yegrs, Occ. Head C-onstable r/o^H.No.2-5-361 ,^{Rangarigally, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad} Districf .

¶10

..Petitioner

¶11

(RespondenUPetitioner)

¶12

AND

¶13

Gandla Laxmi, w/o Gandla^{Nageshwar Rao, aged 43 years, occ.Housewife,} r/o Jandagally, Nizamabad.

¶14

...Respondent (Petitioner/Respondent)

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under section 151 of^{cPCpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be} pleased to grant stay of all further^{proceedings includingthe execution of the} order^passed in l.A.No. 580^{of 2019in HMOP No. 7 of 2019 dt. 6-2-2023 on the} file of the senior civil^{Judge, Bodhan, pending disposalof the main cRP, in the} interest of^justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI N. SRUSHMAN REDDY}

¶19

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HOI OURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SFIEE SUI)H,q, CIVII R-EVISI ON PETITIONNo.7 15 of 202::r

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Civi llevision t)etition is filed againsr tlrc _r dcl dated 06.O2.2O23 in .t,.No.S8O of 2019 in HMOp.No.7 c.l 2O t9 rassed by [he iearnc.<i^.i(: nior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

¶24

The pe t.i- ro ner/ respondent filed O.p.No.7 ol ,)Ol9 seeking decree of dirat^.c: againsL respondent/ peti tior rer l) uri tg the pendency of tl e said petition, his wife filed :rn erpp ica,ion in I.A.No.58O oI i l) 9 seeking interim maintenanr:e of ll:;.2S,00O/per mont.t anr Jegal expenses ol Rs.30,000/_. The l_ial Court considerirrg f, cnLire evirlence on rccord, gra tteC ,tr;.lC,OOOi _ per month tcrvr rrrls intr:rirn maint(.nance of res|onrleLr /u,LI.e arrd her daughtcr- and Rs 2O,OO0/ towards legal cxJ)enscs. Aggrieved b1 tlre said Order, the re sponc enL iL,crein i.e , husband prc ler rr, d the prersen t Civil Revision pe titr on .

¶25

Thc revit on peti Lioner/ respond en t mainJy contr,ndr:d th:rt the mainten:rr :r(, ilmount was granted withc ut ;t:r tsr..rg the contents of h: coLlltt.r filed by him. IJc :,1, tec thal responde| L/ :lc ilioner r.r.as working as a Warcle;r and rlrus she rs

¶26

t-*'i ,;,J-

¶27

)

¶28

getting sufficient amount^{to maintain herself'The rcvision} petitioner is having two^{sons from his hrst wife namelyPraveen} and Naresh and^{they are depending on him' After their marriage} the respondent/^{petitionerwas blessed with a daughter and later} her attitude and^{behavior was indifferent and she started} ignoring the sons^{of his hrst wife and made his life miserable'as} such he filed^{O.P.No.3Sof 2008seekingdivorce During the} pendency of the^{said O.P, at the intervention of the eldersthe} matter has been^{amicably settled and Lok Adalat awardwas} 06.03.2010' Even^{afterwards' the} passed on ) respondent/ petitioner did not mend her ways' as such he filed H.M.O.P.No.7^{of 2Ol9 for dissolution of marriage' There wasno} exchange of dowry^{except the customarypresentationsShe did} not look after^{his old age parents and his children of his first} wife and he^{is also paying Rs'3,OOO/-per month as per Orders} in M.C.No.13 of^{2O13 and thus grantinginterim maintenance} agarn amounts^{to doublejeopardyThe amount of Rs' 1O'0O0/-} per month is on^{high side whencomparedto the income of the} petitioner herein.^{Therefore, requestedthe Court to set aside the} orderofthetrialCourt.Healsofiledmedicalbillsofhisfather.

¶29

4 . The petitioner/^{respondentstated that his wife Vasantha} diedinamotoraccidentono7.ol.2Oo4andtheyareblessed

¶30

¶31

with two nrill€) :^.lildren aged about 10 years anC 6 y:e trs ls on the datt: of her eath and his parcnts aged abo _rt 3:Z vr:zrr,; ancl 75 r,-ears ztnc ; rc also depending on him, as, suc I by dul1, intimating irb:r- I ihe said fact, he performed sec()11( rnar.rlage with respcrnrft: Lt /petitionr:r on 22.11.2OO4 on tris o\ rn expenditur,: s'i1 rout any gtfts and presentationr; anrj r,:rey livcd happily for fo,r' months. I-ater, when she conce verr sht: started neglecting ancl h lrassing the pe titioner/ respc nden _ anrl his children anc'l als,t his old age parents and used to r:t a.rel wil,h them on pr.ctt] ss;ues and also refused to prep tre Ibo,.L slating that she is noI s.:rvant for t_hem. Without doing rlorlr-'r;r,.a c_rorcs she was wzrtchir g the Telc vision and refused to re;rri.r services to children and rir; old age parents. In the mont I of JLrly, 12005. she $,ent to hr:r tr:rent,s house and promised to relt]rn $,ithin lr week, but shc tl: i not return and on the advice c f tht: ei,lers she, agair-r joined tht s,ociety ol the petitioner/ respc nden , bur shc continucd the I atne attitude and left the ma rimrt tiirl ltomc again on ()6.0:; 2()06 and started living with her pa -€.nts itt Kotgir along u'itl I er dauglLter pravalika.

¶32

The peLiti:,(:r/ resporrdent filed O.p.No.35 of _20()ti ,garnst his r.ife sc( ki.\ J vorce on 29.ro.2tJog, but at lhe rnLC..(.rtio, of the eldet s th( l)et_itioner/ respondent agreed rq toirr .arit]_r his

-.,1

wife under some terms and conditions and they also registered the terms and conditions in the Lok Adalat award. Even after the award was passed, they lived happily only^{for four months,} she did not take care of his children and again^{she picked up} quarrel with the petitioner/ respondent and left home^on 15.07.2010, from then onwards she^{was living at her parent's} house at Kotgir. Later she hled M.C.No.13^{of 2013beforethe} Family Court at Nizamabad and the^{family Court directed the} petitioner/respondent to pay Rs.3,000/-^per month towards^her maintenance, against which^{petitioner/respondentfiled} Cr1.R.C.No.71 of 2014 before^{the Hon'bleHigh Court and this} Court reduced the maintenance amount^{to Rs.15O0/- per} month to each i.e., wife and her daughter,^{from thenonwards} the petitioner/respondent was^{paying the maintenance amount} regularly.

¶37

The petitioner herein stated that the^{respondentwas} working as a Warden in Yasha Sri Public^{School and she was} getting a salary of Rs. 18,O0O/-^per month.^{His mother died on} 30.08.2017 and his father^{was aged about 92 years who is} suffering from several ailments and^{recently the} petitioner/ respondent met with a motor accident^{and fractured} his left leg and is unable to do^{his works done, but the}

¶38

¶39

respondenl/F,.1 ttlner has not at all interested tc tl11,.: care of him, his cliri,lr n and his father, as such he llerl (). ).No.7 of 20i9 srek rrg ri, c;c.1, of dir,rrce.

¶40

Dulng he penclency of the said lx)tition, the responclenr/pet tr lner filei an application in I.F.No.5g,.) ol 2Ol9 in O. P. No. 7 ol ilO l9 sceking e nhancement of rn ai t te nance stating thrrt hr: l)arents gave Rs.45,OO0/ towarcs lr. u.r,,, five tulas o1- G,tld . t c^-o Honcja motor cycle and house l_r rlll a:ticles worth Rs..l5,(10 ).r -. The petitioner/ respondent was .{., ,rking as Head Constab, br the past 30 years. He dr:mimrle.l lor an additional clou,r^,r of Rs. 1,O0,0O0/ and necked hr:r cr 1{. l21ep, she joinecl tht :ompanv of the petitioner in I.i:rr cf the Panr:ha5'at c()n: .r(rted before the elclers. She also st...:l that he was get tinq ar s;, li,ry' of more than Rs.7O,00 O I , apar r(rnt o\vll house and orltr r assets irnd he is also havin5i Bank ba.ance , Prer,,iouslv sh,: I lr,d LA,No.173 of 2009 in O.p.No.3S rf 201g, in which interirr ::aintenance of Rs.2,00O/ and l:ga.l e xi)enses of Rs.3,OO0/ \-ir .; granted. At that time, t is s rlrrry was Rs.70,0O0,' ar:.1 later hc was promoted and his r;i, ian, was increascd ro nt )re than (r times of his previous, sa. ary. She further stated 1.. rart her dar.rghter was studying ith r;la;s; and sht: is in her cr.tst,)(l ,., bu[ nou,,a_days the cost of living, is r:ry high,

|;..'i :, r-

as such requested the Court to grant interim maintenance^o[ Rs.25,0OO/- per month and legal expenses of Rs.30,000/-

¶45

In the Counter liled by the petitioner/ respondent,^he stated that after deductions he was getting the salary^{. of} Rs.20,O0O/- per month, he has to maintain his two sons and his father who is suffering from several ailments. He engaged^an attendant to look after them, already he was^paying Rs.3,000/per month to the respondent/ petitioner and her daughter. He also stated that the respondent/ petitioner was working^as Warden in Yesasri High School, Kotgir and getting a sa1ary of Rs.18,OOO/- per month and her daughter^was studying in^the same school at free of cost and she was also^{getting a pensionof} Rs.2,OOO/- per month under "Ontari Mahila" and she^has sufhcient means, as such there is no^{requirement to pay} maintenance or legal expenses.

¶46

The tria,l Court considering the pay-slips produced for the month of November, 2022, obserted that his^incomewas Rs. 1,39,344 and after deductions he was^{gettingRs.85,2261-.} The pelitioner/respondent had also hled Bank^statementto show that he^{was payingRs.20,129/-} towards^{housingIoan and} Rs.24,2761- towards^{personal loan.} It^{was observed that as he}

¶47

¶48

is a ptrbli, s lr a tt, the medical expenses incurred^,t1 hi I and his dcpen,lcrLt-: ctn be reimbursed. Even after the i,rrr: arlounL, Rs..10,0001 s, s left overr with the petitioner/resp:r.de;rt. He has to tal..C cur Ll of his tu,o sons, but he could nct r s..ap: frorr the liabili y 11 n-zrintainirrg his u,ife and his rlatrghter t,y just paying Rs 3,00 )/i.. ller month u,hich is meager. Hr: ha. not filt:d any docurncnt t(. shoq' ttrat his q,ife was .orking rs, Warden. Even if shc is; r o:'king zrs Warden, her salary may be F,s.5,OOOi _ to [ts.6,0tr0/-, brrt not Rs;.18,O00/- as stated by hiI ernd it is also impr,rba.ltl I to sa)' that free education is prov cl,:d to hcr daughter. TlLe trial Coun_ also observed that reslx)r.t 1er.t/u,ife has filed lbe ri ceipts of her daughter for an a:nount ()f Rs.2 1,OO0/ ar :.1 Its. 18,000/ - dated 31.10.2 O22 a:ncl 2,.,, .Ott.2022 and she $,,rs; l1et.ting Pension of Rs.2,OO()/_ pe: r:ronth. Therefore. r:or:L ricicring the income of the per.itiont t., husband and the e.\pe nr 3:i of the rvife and her daughte:., the tr ial Court grar.r [ecl Rs. lO, )(_07,- per rnonth towards interim raintrnance and Rs.2O,OC0, Lou,ards Jegal expenses.

¶49

i0. The revi: ion petitioner made several allegrrtir,r s against his wife ancl st r1,:d that tre filed O.p.No.35 of 200ii, l:ut it was settled betu'((:r therm ancl Lok Adalat Award rvas; also passe(i. Laterr, she clirl . c,l comlth with the terms of Lh(.Au,arcl, ar; such

¶50

": .: i: i. :;

¶51

¶52

he lrled O.P.No.7 of 2019. During the^{pendencyof the said O.P} for divorce, she filed an application seeking^interim maintenance and also seeking legal expenses.^The petitioner/ respondent stated that as per the Ordersⁱⁿ M.C.No. 13 of 2O13 he has been^{paying Rs.3,OOO/-per month} towards maintenance of his wife and her^daughterand moreover she was also working as^{Warden,as such free} education is provided to her daughter,^{but he couldnot hle any} document to show the income of^{his wife, but his wifehled fee} receipts of her daughter for an^{amountof Rs.21,00O} I^-and Rs. 18,OOO/-. The petitioner herein has^{also filed fee receipts} pertaining to his hrst wife sons and also^{several online} transactions regarding the^{payment of maintenance of his} second wife. Even as^per the^{pay-slip,he was gettingthe salary} of Rs.1,39,00O1- for the month of^{November,2022, afler} deductions he was^{gettingRs.85,226/-- Even after the housing} Ioan and personal loan,^{he was left over with Rs.40,0OO/-,as} such the trial Court rightly considering^{the argumentsand also} the documents frled by both the^{partiesgranted Rs. 10,0O0/-} towards interim maintenance^{of his wifeand his daughter and} also Rs.2g,QOO/- towards^{legal expenses' The other contentions} made by him regarding his^{wife can be looked into in the main}

¶53

¶54

O.I' filed ibr- r: v,rrr:e and this Court hnds no infir l tv in the Ordcr of thc' :ri rl Court

¶55

In thc i s-rlt., the Civil Revision petititn is ,lisrnissed confirming, t h t: )rde.r dated 06.02.2023 in I.A.No.5BO c,f 2()19 in H.M.O.P.No.7 o ! 019 passed by the learned Senior Or.. il ..udge, Bod han.

¶56

MisccllzrrL,o_rs pertitions pending, if ary, sltrrll stand closcd

¶57

To,

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

SiD/. K.VENKAIAH ,qSSIS T/$LI- REGISTRAR -il) ;[,CTION OFFICER

¶60

'1 . The Senior C,v I Judge, Bodhan, Nizamabad.

¶61

One CC tc, SRI ,:lllAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advo:ate [()FUC] 3. One CC tc, SRt I!. SRUSHN4AN REDDY, Advocate loptr(]l

¶62

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:091062023

ORDER

CRP.No.715^, rl' 2023

¶70

t
.4
i,1., E S I4y€ I
t(
.l
c z
C.t
:. 't 4 tljt ilm n
'5 +
\i. a."'1 e .
\ i. ,- i I -,^-. H

¶71

DISMISS!NG THE CIVIL REVISION PETI]iION

¶72

a9
<br>

Gandla Nageshwar Rao v. Gandla Laxmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandla Nageshwar Rao v. Gandla Laxmi

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

A. Srikanth Vs J. Bal Reddy

Smt Kodali Vineela Vs Smt. Kodali Shobharani

T.S. Mahalaxmi Vs M. Ravindranath

Dandugula Rajaiah, Vs Sri P. Ramchandram, (Major)

Neeradi Ratna and 2 Ors. Vs Amin Virani and Anr.

Ameena Bai Vs Abdul Satha (died) by LRs