Disposed

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Telangana HC15 Mar 2024CRLRC/1828/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision petitions challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs.15,000/- per month plus arrears, the Telangana High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, finding the quantum reasonable and dismissing the revisions.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Revision Cases (Nos. 1828 and 3166 of 2016) are dismissed; no relief modified.

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., Vs the State… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY^{OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION^{CASE Nos:1828and 3166 of 2016}

¶7

CRL.R.C. No.1828 of^2016:

¶8

Revision filed under^{Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.Cagainst the Order dated} 26.4.20'16 made^{in M.C No.39 of 2013, on the file of the Court of the Judge,} Family Court at Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt K.Kavitha,^{Wo. K. Madhukar,aged 32 years,Occdpation Nil,} F/o 6-4-398,^{Bholakpur, Secunderabad,500080.}

¶11

Babv Shree^{Nidhi,D/o. K. Madhukar,aged about 4 years, beingminor} repri:sent by her^{molher and.natural guardian, the petitionerNo.1 herein-}

¶12

...Petitioners/Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana,^{Repby Public Prosecutor, HighCourt at Hyderabad.}

¶15

Kadiqe Madhukar,^{S/o. Anjaneyulu, aged 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,} '13-

¶16

Kund-analli, AECS^{LayOut, Bangalore,Permanentresident of} 6-267163, New^{Satyanarayana Nagar, Jafarguda, Karwan, Hyderabad.}

¶17

...RespondenURespondent

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl.^{KOTA SAMEER KUMAR}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI VIZARATHALl, ASSISTANTPUBLIC} PROSECUTOR^(TG)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2: SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR}

¶21

Z?l(c-^r{o' 31,66^{o€ }r\6}

¶22

Between:

¶23

1 [..Mqqhykqr,^{S/o Anjaneyutu,aged about 35 years, Occ pvt} Emplovee No 13-6-267163, New Satyanarayana Nagar, Jafaiguda, Karvan, HyOerbOja

¶24

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶25

AND

¶26

Smt K.Kavitha, W/o K. Madhukar, aged about 34 years, Occ: - Analyst, R/o 6-4-398. Bholakpur, Secundera6ad - 500080

¶27

Baby Shree lrlidhi,, D/o K. Madhukar, Aged about 6 years, being minor rep. by her mother and natural guardian, the reipondent no.^.l herein.

¶28

State of Telangana,, represented by^public prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶29

...Responclents/Petitioners

¶30

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(IIRLRCMP. NO: 4954 0F 2016)

¶31

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstancgQ stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 26.04.2016 passed in MC.No.39/2013 on the file of the Judge, Family court, secunderabad pending dispsoal fo the above revision petition

¶32

Counsel for the Petitionen SRI M.V.^pRATAp KUMAR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KOTA SAMEER KUMAR

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶35

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶36

.^u,,.

¶37

{,-)

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1828 and 3166 of 2016

¶39

COMMON ORDER:

¶40

Since the proceedings in both the Criminal Revision Cases are arising out of the same M.C.No.39 of 2013 and F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2074 and as the parties are common, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶41

The Criminal Revision Case Nos.1828 and 31.66 of 2016 are filed against the common order dated 26.04.20L6 in M.C.No.39^of 2013 and F.C.O.P.No.40 of 201.4 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad (for short, "the trial Court"), wherein the trial Court dismissed the F.C.O.P filed by the husband and partly allowed the M.C. directing the respondent therein to pay Rs.15,000/- to petitioners therein.

¶42

For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

¶43

referred as per their array before^the hial Court in M.C.No.39 of - 2org.^*'</sup>

¶44

Crl. R.C.Nos. 1828 arrd³¹⁶

¶45

¶46

¶47

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent was performed on 23.11.2008. Later, respondent along with his family members used to harass petitioner No.1 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry. It is stated that even during the pregnancy period, respondent neither took care of petitioner No.1 nor given proper medical che,,-k up to petitioner No.1

¶48

Heard Mr. Kota Sameer Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State in Crl.R.C.No.1828 of 201.6. Perused the record.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.7828 of 2016 submitted that though the respondent/ husband u,as earning Rs.70,000/- per month, the trial Court has erroneously granted Rs.15,000/- tlrwards monthly maintenance. Hence, he prayed the Court to enhance the amount towards monthly interim mamtenance

¶50

E!1/,J Crl.R.C.Nos.l828 ard 3166 of 2016

\ \

I )

Leamed counsel for the respondent/husband submitted that the respondent/husband is not financially stable to Pay

¶56

Rs.15,000/- towards monthly interim maintenance^as directed^by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed the Court^{to reduce} the^amount towards monthly interim maintenance.

¶57

The trial Court, vide common order dated 26.04.2076^whlle the dismissing the F.C.O.P.No.40 of 2074, pattly^allowed M.C.No.39 of 201.3 apart from directing the^{respondent,/husband} to pay monthly interim maintenance of^{Rs.15,000/-to petitioners} and also directed the respondentr/husband to Pay^arrearsof Rs.50,000/- to petitioner No.1.

¶58

As seen from the record, it is evident^that respondent/husband harassed petitioner^{No.1 cruelly. Thoughit} was is stated that as per Ex.8.26,^{the respondent/husband} eaming Rs.70,000/- per month,^{considering the requirements of} the petitioners, the trial Court^{has grantedRs.15,000/- towards}

¶59

monthly interim maintenance^apart from^directingthe respondent/husband to pay arrears^{of interim maintenancei.e.,}

¶60

Crl.R-C.Nos. 1828 rurd 3I66

¶61

¶62

Rs.50,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶63

this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly passerl the common order after careful scru tiny of oral and documentary evidence available on record. Therefore,, the interference of this Court is unwarranted and both the Criminal Revisions are liable to be dismissed.

¶64

Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.

¶65

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI tITY REGISTRAR

E,CTION OFFICER

To,

The Judge, Family Court at Secunderabad. (with records, if any)

¶74

One CC to SRl. KOTA SAMEER KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶75

One CC to SRI M.V. PRATAP KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

Two CCs to PI.JBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, HYDERABAD. (OUT)

¶77

Two CD Copies

"\K

HIGH COURT

DATED:15/03/2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.1828 of 2016

¶83

'F#rr"
't tl E grA r€
v
2025
3 10 lll[fl
aQ
J
l')F P r c

¶84

DISMISSINC'I'HE C Rt-.R.C.

¶85

@
lb
0
t

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K.Kavitha, Secunderabad and Anr., v. the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

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

G.Krishnamurthy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

M/s. Pnr Industries, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by the Principal Secretary to

B.Buchaiah, Yousufguda, Hyd., Vs the State of Ap., Rep. Pp., and Anr.

Mohammad Sulthana Begum Vs Guguloth Sakunthala

Chennaram Niranjan Reddy , Raghavender Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Dubbaka Venkataiah Vs the State of A.P.