Disposed

Mr. Kiran Kumar Atluri v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Aug 2024CRLP/9206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged an interim maintenance order awarding Rs.15,000 per month to his wife and minor daughter, contending the wife was earning and he lacked financial capacity. The High Court reduced the amount to Rs.13,000 per month (Rs.9,000 to wife, Rs.4,000 to daughter) and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Monthly interim maintenance reduced to Rs.13,000 total: Rs.9,000 to respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000 to respondent No.3, payable on or before the 10th of each month.

Mr. Kiran Kumar Atluri Vs State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICEK. SUJANA}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9206^{OF 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr Kiran Kumar Atluri,^{S/o. V. L. N. V. Prasad, Aged 32 years,Occ:^Software} Employee,R/o.H.No.1-s5,ValasapalliViillage,RamalayamVeedhr'Gollapudr' Krishna District. Andhra^Pradesh

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt for the State of} Telanqana at^HYderabad.

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

2 Smt. Srrisha Maddineni, Wo.^{Kiran Kumar Atluri, D/o VenkateshwaraRao'} aged 30 years, Occ^{Pvt. Employee,}

¶14

3 Afluri sreshta Janeessa,^{D/o. KiranKumarAtluri,Respondentbeingminor} rep by her natural^{guardian/mother Smt Sirisha Maddineni,}

¶15

Both are R/o. Flat },Io. 161, 162i 2"d^{floor, Suraksha Hills,-Road No' 1'} C ha ndanagar, Serilingampally,^{Near Kidzee School Road, Ranga Reddy} Drstnct.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

Petitron under Section 528^{of BNSS., prayingthat rn the circumstances} stated rn the tr/lemorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may} be pleased to^{quashthe Order daled 27. 03.2024passed in Crl MP No 489of} zo)s tn^N4. 0 No^{87 0f 2022 0n the file of th€ court of learned vt Addl District} and Sessions^{Judgecum- FamilyCourt, Ranga ReddyDistrict at Kukatpally'}

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

PetitionunderSection528ofBNSS.'prayingthatintheclrcumstances stated in the^{l,4emorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Courtmay} be pleased to^{grantstay of all further proceedings including enforcement of} orderdated2703.2024passedinCrl.MP.No.489o'f2023intvl,CNo87of

¶20

t I

¶21

2022 on the file of tt)e court of^{learnedvl Additional District and sessions Judge-} cum- Family Court, Ranga^{Reddy Districtat Kukatpally, pending rjisposal of the} main Criminal Petition.

¶22

This Petitron coming on^{for hearing, upon perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal^{Petitionand upon hearing the argumentsof Sri M TARAK} ABHILASH, Advoce,te for the^{Petitionerand of Sri Arun Kumar Doddla,the} Assistant Public^Prosecutor for^{the State of Telangana on behalf of the} Respondent No.'1 arrd None^{Appeared for the Respondent No.2 and 3.}

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

i 1/

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.92O6 of 2o24

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2O23 (for short tsNSS') challenging the order dated 27.O3.2O24 in Crl.M.P.No.489 of 2023 in M.C.No.87 of 2022 on the file of learned W Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. By the impugned order, the trial Court while partly allowing the petition granted monthly interim maintenance of Rs.l5,O0O/- to respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶29

2 Heard Sri M. Tarak Abhilash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Doddla, Iearned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State.

¶30

\ \

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that respondent No.2 is earning by working at Perficient India Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that the petitioner is not linancially stable to pay the monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/ - as per the impugned order dated 27.O3.2O24. Hence, he prayed this Court to reduce the monthly

¶32

¶33

interim mainl enance amount to^{be paid by the petitionerto} respondent Nc s.2 and 3.

¶34

Having regard to the petition averments^{and also in view} of the submissions made by the learned^{counsel for thr: petitioner,} this Court is inclined to reduce^{the monthly interim rnaintenance} amount from Rs.15,000/- to^Rs.13,00O l-^{and the petitioneris} directed to pay monthly interim^{maintenance of Rs'9,000/- to} respondent No.2 arrd Rs.4,000/- to respondent^{No.3 on or before} 10th each and every succeeding month.

¶35

5 With the above direction, the Criminal Petition . is

¶36

disposed.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also^stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

¶40

Sd/- P PADMANABHA RE DY ASSISTANT REGIS R

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To '1. The Vl Additional District and Sessrons Judge-cum-Family Court at Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy Distnct

¶44

The Additional Family Court-cum- Addrtional Drstrict Judge, lt/edchal Malkajgiri.

¶45

The lX Additional Metropolitan lvlagistrate at Cyberabad Kukatcally.

¶46

The Station hcuse Officer. Chandhanagar Polrce Station, Cyberrabad.

¶47

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of lelangana at Hyderabad^(CrUT)

¶48

One CC to SRl. tvl TARAK ABHILASH Advocale [OPUC]

¶49

Two CD Colties

ut-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210812024

ORDER

CRLP.No.9206 of 2024

==1
sk
,l ,J? €
-r'
(-
1 iiIll Elffi
D€.9
IrA f Cii-'-i
{
a

¶57

DISPOSING OF

¶58

THE CRL.PETITION

¶59

OXT.,N,

Mr. Kiran Kumar Atluri v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kiran Kumar Atluri v. 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

Manuka Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana

Macherla Deendayal Veeraswamy Sambaiah Deendayal Vs Kotagiri Laxmi

Raju Chawan Vs The State of Telangana

Anandasi Ravi Babu@Babu. Vs Chidumula Venkatreddy

Bandaru Ramesh Babu Vs The State of Telengana

Jogam Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana