Dismissed

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC13 Dec 2024CRLRC/272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision Case challenging interim maintenance granted by the Family Court was dismissed. The Bench held the proceeding is not maintainable as the matter is covered by a prior order in Crl.R.C(SR) No.3198 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C is dismissed; petitioners at liberty to work out other remedies.

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V, VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 272 OF 2022

¶6

Revision filed under Section 3971401 of Cr.PC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated^'1 1105/2021^passed in Crl.M.P BB/2019 in MC No.20712018 on the file of the Family Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶7

Between

¶8

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali, S/o Sri. N. K.Anjaneyulu, Aged about 40 yearp, Occ. Pvt Job, Rlo.H No 4-41, Kundanpally Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal District.

¶9

Petitroner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana and 3 Others, Rep,by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Smt. M.K.Deepthi, Wo Sri.M.K.Venu Murali, Aged About 33 years, Occ Bussines, R/o.H.No, 3-11-440, Shiva Ganga Mansurabad, L.B Nagar, R.R. Diskict

¶13

M.K.Anjan Kumar, S/o Sri M.K. Venu Murali, Aged about 10 years, Occ. Student. R/o. H.No 3-11-440, Shiva Ganga Colony, Mansurabad, L.B.Nagar, R.R.District. Minor, Rep. by its or Natural Guardian Respondent No.2

¶14

M..K.Srinidhish, S/o. Sri M.K. Venu Murali, Aged about 6 years, Occ. Student. R/o. H.No 3-11-440, Shiva Ganga Colony, Mansurabad, L.B.Nagar, R R. District. Minor, Rep. by its or Natural Guarduan Respondent No.2

¶15

Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 1110512021 passed in Crl.M.P.BB12019 in MC No.20712018 on the file of the Family Court, Reddy District, at L B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State., pending disposal of the CTL.RC^.

¶18

¶19

Counsel for the petitione(s).SRl. Rajagopallavan Tayi

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents. SRI E,Ganesh, Asst. p. p (TG)

¶21

The Court made the foliowing. ORDER

-'*-1''

\ {

) \

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 oF.2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 11.O5.2O21 in Crl.M.P.No.BB of 2Ol9 in M.C.No.2O7 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State (for short, "the trial Court") wherein the learned Judge had granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,5OO/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of filing of the application, pending maintenance case-

¶29

Heard Mr.Raja Gopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing lor respondent No. 1-State.

¶30

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that this Court vide order dated 27.04.2022 in Cr1.R.C (SR) No.3t9B of 2022 h,eld that as against an interlocutory order, a Revision under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. Therefore, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

¶32

In view of the facts^{and circumstances of the case, this} court is not inclined to entertain^{the criminalRevisioncase at} this stage, as the^{proceedingshereunder are covered by the order} d.ated.27.O4.2022^{1n Crl.R.C(SR) No'3198 of 2022 passedby this} Court.

¶33

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Revision Case isdismissed'} Needless to mention, the^{petitionersare at liberty to work out the} remedies available under^law.

¶34

Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pendingif any, shall stand closed'}

¶35

Sd/- T. SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPYII ,,ft i dEcur ION OFFICER

¶36

¶37

To,

¶38

The Family Judge Court, Ranga^{Reddy District,L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad,} Telangana State.

¶39

One CC to SRl. Rajagopallavan^{Tayi, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶40

m CC.rto P. P., lligh Court for the State^{of Telangana, High Court Buildings,} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶41

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED 13t12t2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.272 of 2022

z-r:::=
l tr' .s,-4,
4
(
(
o
2t rrn zus C I
,l
{,'
+
n[sprJ.cYi9O

¶48

CRIMINAL REVISIoN CASI] IS DISMISSIjD

¶49

1c.14(aA@p

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.K.Venu Murali v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

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

Sama Vema Reddy, R.R.Dt., Vs State of Ap. Rep. Pp. Hyd.

Satla Sri Sri Vs State of Telangana

Vema Kalpana Vs The State of Telangana and another

Nanavath Rangamma, Saleem Nagar Colony, Hyderabad Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court

Smt. Tallpragada Lalitha Rau alias Lalitha Kumari Rau Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Yousuf and Another Vs Syed Moosa and Another