Wife obtained maintenance reliefs in a DVC; on appeal the Sessions Court modified them. Husband's criminal revision challenged those modified orders, contending the wife had divorced and remarried. The High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[32s1 ]
l I i I I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 40 OF 2013
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and40'1 ofCr.PCagainst the Judgment dated 7-1 1-2012 made in Crl.A.No.374 ot 2011 onthe file of the court of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,(MahilaCourt), at Hyderabad preferred against the Order dated 25-7-2011 madein DVC.No.128 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolitan Magrstrateat Hyderabad.
Between:
... Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents
AND
...RespondenURespondenUPetitoner
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Sri N.C.Das
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M.Madhava Reddy The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No.4O OF 2013 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed seekir-rg to set aside the order in D.V.C.No.l2B of 20 10, on the file of Ill Me tropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.
" 1. 'l'he rr-'spondents 1 Lo 3 are directecl to pay amount of Rs.3,79,9OO/ - towards purchase of rlold and silvcr ornaments under Ex.p. I to p.4, Rs. 1,50,000/ the loan amount raised by thc far her of pel itioncr and in tol.al respondents I to 3 shalj pay Iis.5,29,900/- to the petirioncr within Lr,,,o month s.
2
amount of Rs.3,000/- towards monthly rentfor her accommodation from the date of order only. 3. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed topay compensation of Rs.5,OO,O00/ - to thepetitioner only for causing physical mental andemotional distress to her within two months."
" 1. The petitioner is entitledtoRs.4,O5,000/- towards the return ofdowry amountas well as value of the ornaments.The respondentsare directed to pay thesaid amount tothe appellant/ petitioner.
petitioner/husband would submitthat the criminal case
I
-)
that was filed rvas in fact quashed and there is no appeal against the said quashment. Further, in the year, 2O).2 itself, divorce application was filed by the wife and sought divorce. In the said circumstances, when the rvife had taken divorce, the question of making husband liable to pay the maintenance as directed by the Court below is improper. Further, counsel on the earlier occasion submitted that respondent/wife has remarried, as such, she is not entitled for any of the reliefs granted by the Court below.
0 t
4
\
\
stated by both the parties. The remaining amount shall be paid by the petitioner/husband within eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. Miscellaneous
applications pending, if aly, shall stand closed.
\ To,\
Sd/. T. SRI IVAS DEPUTYREGITRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER
Svs/DL
]
HIGH COURT
DATED:0210912024
(,1
I
72 tcT 2W
:;l
-:.: ", ,1*,,'.) 1
" - - - ----:---'
JUDGMENT
CRLRC.No.40 of 2013
DISMISSING THE CRLRC
p,t
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Sessions Court's directions under the domestic violence proceedings granting return of ornaments/dowry amount, compensation and alternative accommodati
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. Surya Narayana Raju
Palagiri Roop Chandra Varma
Palagiri Ramana Kumari
Bramhandabheri Suchitra
The State of A.P.
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
