Disposed

Kodimyala Shravani Laxmi v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Oct 2023WP/28689/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the petitioner challenged the maintenance award of Rs.10,000/month to his minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., arguing she had attained majority. The High Court held the award was not meagre and refused to interfere with the trial court's findings on financial capacity.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is disposed of with miscellaneous applications pending thereunder also dismissed.

Kodimyala Shravani Laxmi Vs the State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1066 OF 2016

¶6

Criminal Revision Case filed Under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order made in M.C.No.78 oI 2012 dated 20.01.2016 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case Cum Additional Family Court Cum lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Seshagiri Rao, S/o Late B.V.Narsimha Rao, Occ Business, No 16-11-5111D1184, Moosarambagh, Shalivahananagar, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

1.. B.Vennella, D/o B.Seshagiri Rao, Occ Student, No 16-11-2017|K, Saleemnagar colonv' Malakpet'

¶12

"0""?.1flEa"oNDENT/pETrroNER^No.3

¶13

1. Smt.B.Jyothi @ Sirivolu Napinna Piratti, W/o B.Seshagiri Rao, Occ Houswife, No 16-11-2O17lK, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶14

B.Abhinav, S/o B.Seshagiri Rao, Occ Student, No 16-11-2Ol7lK, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet,Hyderabad. (The Respondents 2&3 herein are not necessary parties to this Criminal Revision)

¶15

...RES''NDENTS/'ET',.NERS No.1&2

¶16

The State of Telangana,, rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature, at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.,

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

CRL.R.C.M.P. NO:t|558 OF 2016

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 20th January, 2016, made in M.C.No. 78 ot 2012, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case cum Additional Family Court cum lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, granting maintenance of

¶20

Rs.1 0,0001 per month to the 1 st Respondr-.nt/Petitioner No.3 herein, pending disposal of the Revision Petition and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Cou( may deem fit and proper in the r;ircumstances of the case and in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. G.ANANDAtt!

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : M/s VIZAIIATH ALI ASSISTAI{T PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

Counsel for the Rl to R3 : None Appeared

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRJMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1O66 OF 2016

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal revision case is hled under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short^'Cr.P.C.') by the^petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2016 passed in MC No.78 of 2072 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trail^of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cumXXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad wherein a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was awarded to the respondent No.1^from the date of petition and also Rs.¹ ,000/ - torvards cost^{of the petitionand} rejccted the claim of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶28

Heard Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the^petitioner and Sri Yizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,^representing learned Pr-rblic Prosecutor for the State/ 4d" respondent.^{None appeared} for the respondent Nos. I to 3.

¶29

MC No.78 of 2Ol2 was fi1ed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are wife and children^{of the} petitioner herein seeking maintenance. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his parents harassed the 2'd respondent physically and mentally, not provided basic necessities, suspected the t-rdeliry of the 2"d respondent and failed to adhere to the undertakings

¶30

!t^{l, of il}

¶31

before eldcrs^{irncl polir:c irtthe process ol} anci agreements^made wilhdra\'ir1g the^cases hlccl by^the 2nJ^{respondr:lrt agaln-<t thc} petitioner,[tisalsoallegedthatinr,iervofdlr:disturllarrccstireyliled FCOP No.1245 of^{201 1, during the courseof proceeclingsin the said} OP, the^{petitioner voluntarily agree<l to pay tis 8,000/ - per rrronttr'to} bear the educational^{expr:nditure a nd nlainl enanceof their children} and marriage^{expensesol his claughter and in compliance of the same'} he paid some amounts^{throrrgh che'lucsand sullsequently he siopped} paymcnts. In that^{vieu' of the Irz11t'er, thc' respondentl'los lto ll} sul'fered a lot-^{to meel their basic n':cessitics and hence,thc5't;iedto} Cor.rveythesalnethrougheldersandwhenthcpetitionerdidr-rotheedto the samc, ihey^{{ilcd the martltenancecaseThe petitioner denied the} allegations^{l.herein stating theltrespondeut No 2 is a quarrelsomclady'} intendccl to scparate^{frorn the parents of thc petitioner, shc left the} compan)' of^th e^{petitioner her o',vnr"ithoutt hcre being arry fauh-'she} filed several criminal^{casesagainst].he petitioller and demandedhuge} sumsofnloney,hiseffortstoreunionwitlthiswifearrdclrildren, including fi1ing suit,^{went in vain due to the aciamantbehaviour of the} 2.d respondent.^{Further,since the 2"d resljondent her own left the} company of tl-re^{petitioncr and the 3"l respondent attained rnajority'he} is not liabl-' to^{pay compen sation to theml-lowever, he cxpressed his} ready and^{q'illingness to pay mairltenance to his daughterthe lst}

¶32

.r7

¶33

Page 3 of4

¶34

respondent and also to look after the welfare of his children. He further stated that he has to look after his old aged parents

¶35

The Court below, upon considering the evidence on record in the form of PWl, RW1 and Exs.Rl to R4 has dismissed the claim of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 concluding that the 2"d respondent was gainfully employed and the 3.d respondent has attained majority. However, the Court below has awarded Rs. 10,O00/- per month towards maintenance to the 1st respondent/ minor daughter, as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said findings, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case alleging that during pendency of proceedings in the maintenance case, the 1st respondent attained majority and hence, he is not liable to pay compensation to her. The Court below failed to appreciate his attending the needs of his children, his linancial constraints and social responsibilities.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. do not attract to the present case as the 1"t respondent has attained majority but the Court below failed to appreciate the same. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of the Court below was passed on merits with proper reasoning as the claim of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was rejected and taking into consideration of the age, education

¶37

Pagrc 4 of 4

¶38

zlnc{ eerrning capaciLy r-rf thc I 'r res tondellt, a,vardcd^{lnaintcrlance tc)} hr.t..

¶39

6.^'lhis Court, he ving rer-orded the submissions^{t-narie bi} lezrrrtecl coarrsel for l.hc I)etidor.rcr and the lcarnr:d .,r,ssistarlt^I:'utrill; .cy Prosecutor, is ol the considered view thar" tbe nraintenancc^au'alcled the [ria1 C)r-,urt to thc¹ "t re sironder rt is vet1, meagre in^vicw of^her attencling rrecessities and esczrlatecl prices iis well as lhe^i:al llir1g capa.:il-v of the pctitioner. lrt that vit:rv c'f tlte mattr:r, ti:is Cor-rrt is^not. inclincd to inlerferc u'ith Ll-r c finCir-rgs cf the Lrizrl Court. it is ne,:clless to rnention Lhil'L the pet.itioner lrr at iil)rrty to v;ork out his rcr-ncdics^as availablc under law.

¶40

With the above observations, ttris criminal revislon case ls disposed of . X4isccllarreous applications, if any, pending sl'ralI also cl isrnisscd

¶41

Sd/. I NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYry

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the^{Trial of Jubilee Hills Car} Bomb Blast Case Cum Additional Family Court Cum^{lX Additional} Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabadfl^/ith Records,^{if any)}

¶47

2 One CC to Sri G.Anandam , Advocate^(OPUC) a Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of^Telanganaat Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶48

Two CD Copies ks spt

HIGH COURT

EW,J

DATED:2310812023

,. - .:__:i=r
.<br>/ -.
21 ti,t :li:I
D
,+
'l

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRL.R.C.No.1 066 of 201 6

¶56

Disposing of the Crl.R.C

¶57

Iolfr

Kodimyala Shravani Laxmi v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodimyala Shravani Laxmi v. the State of Telangana

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

Kondapally Satya Sheel Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by

Gandham Padma Latha Vs State of Telangana

M/s Vedik Estates and Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

G. Venkataiah and 32 others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

Smt B.Padma Vs The State of Telangana

R.Bhanu Murthy Vs The State of Telangana