Partly allowed

M.Naresh Kumar v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC15 Oct 2024CRLRC/2310/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision maintaining that the order directing payment of maintenance arrears requires no interference, this court dismissed the petition but allowed it partially likely for procedural closure. The court relied on the trial court's calculation regarding the husband's payment liability.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case is dismissed on merits but partly allowed, pending clarification on procedural status after counsel's death.

M.Naresh Kumar Vs The State of A.P. — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32s11

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

IVIONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2398 OF²⁰¹¹

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 &^{401 of Cr.P.CAggrieved by the docket} orderdt.'15-.1 1-201'1 madeinCrl.MP.No.1282of^{2O11 inMC.No.33of 2005onthe} file of the Family Court, R.R. District at^{LB, Nagar.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Employee, Lakshmi Narayana R/o^'Flat Reddy, No.303, S/o 111 Rama^{Floor, Thara Tower, Road} Reddy,^{aged about 39 years,-Occ.No.2,} Saleemnagar, IVlalakpet, Hyderabad.

¶10

...RespondenURespondenUPetitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

State of AP, rep. by its Public^{Prosecutor, High Court,Hyderabad.}

¶13

Smt. Laxmi Jaya Pradha Devi @ Jayaprada^{Reddy, Wo B.L.N. Reddy, aged} 35 years, Oct. Housewife,^{R/o Flet No.30'1} ,^{SrilakshmiApartments,Road} No.5, Alakapur, R.K. Puram, Hyderabad.

¶14

B.N. Sagar Reddy, S/o Sri B.L.N.Reddy,^{aged Mqio1,Oqc- Student,.-R/oFlat} No.30'l ,- Sri La-kshmi Apartments, Road^{No.5, Alkapuri R.K.Puram,} Hyderabad.

¶15

...Petitioners/Petitioners/Respondents

¶16

CRL.RC.MP. NO:3616 OF 2011:

¶17

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 Courtmay be} pleased to suspend the docket order dt.15-1 1-2011^{passed in Crl.MP.No.12B2 of} 2011 in MC.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the^{Family Court, RR.Districtat L.B.Nagar'} including N.B.W pending disposal of the^{above Crl. RC}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1^{:ASSISTANTPUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2 & 3 :} NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2398 of 2O11

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

It is brouglrt to the notice of this Court that Ms.S.Va:ri, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, has passed away. I have gone through the record and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor assisted this Court for deciding the matter on merits.

¶27

The preserLt Criminal Rewision Case is filed questioning the Docket Order dated 15.11.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1282 of 2011 in M.C.No.33 of 2Ot)5 whereby the learned Famiiy Judge, Rangareddy District, passed 1.he impugned Order giving details of the arrears of maintenance amount that has to be paid by the petitioner/husbald to the respondent/wife and child.

¶28

The impugned Order of the trial Court is as follows:

¶29

" Peru:;ed the record. Heard. As per the record, the respond-ent Jiom O9.11.2005 to 31.03.2011, he is pagable to the petttioners Rs.3,2 1,353/ . As per tlrc petitioner contention she receiued an amount of Rs.2,85,833/ as on ftling of the present peti.f.inn. The contention of respondent b he paid_

¶30

Rs.2,93,333t , but the respondent has not file the ang d-ocumentary proof to shotu that he paid Rs.2,93,333/- as on 30.04.2011. The deference worked from both sides i^s onlg Rs.7,5OO/- as on 31.03.2011. As I ltaue alreadg discassed as per the court record, the respondent is due to the petitioner as on 31.03.2Oi 1 is Rs.3,21,353/-. So the respondent i.s due an amount of Rs.35,52O/- o.s on 31.03.2011. So the respondent is clirected to pctg Rs.35,520/ towards an-rears as on 31.03.20.t I and the respondent is dtrected to paA costs of Rs.l,OOO/-

C I

.':,

.....:,: \ -'" L^,q-./ra :. -':.,

¶35

totallg the respondent i-s liable to pay Rs.36,52O/ - as on 31-O3.2O11. The respondent is directed to pag Rs-36,52O/- bg 25.11.2011, failing uhich, NBW uill be issued. Call on 25.11.2011. The petitioner b directed to file separate petition fromApil,2O11."

¶36

Having gone through the grounds it is the contention of the petitioner/husband that the arrears of maintenance amount has to be reconciled and calculation has to be re-done. The same can as well be filed before the trial Court.

¶37

I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugrred Order and this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶39

'Io,

¶40

Sd/- B. SATYAVATHI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶41

1, The Judge Family Court, R.R. District at LB. Nagar. (Records if any) 2. Two CCs to the pUBLtC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Ap, Hyderabad(OUT) 3. One CC to Ms. K. Sridevi, Advocate.[OpUC]

¶42

Two CD Copies

RC/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0910912024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.2398 of 2011

¶50

!t.t t'. Sl^rc
\ I
1
i c
2E[':i,2!l{
)
t Dt:.-,,r,.,^' f<br>

¶51

ACCORDINGLY, THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS PARTLY ALLOWED

¶52

@
+o\trlA.
,-/ w

M.Naresh Kumar v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Naresh Kumar v. The State of A.P.

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

V Narayana Reddy (Died) Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Sadiq Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Peddadoddi Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Thakur Rajender Singh, Nizamabad Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd

B.Shiva Ramakrishna, Visakhapatnam., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

B. Rameshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana