Dismissed

Manjunath v. S. Anusha @ Lahari

Telangana HC4 Dec 2024CRLRC/578/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC against an order of the Family Court granting monthly maintenance to the wife and minor children in a divorce suit. The High Court dismissed the revision holding the quantum reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Request to set aside the maintenance order dated 10.07.2023 in MC No.6 of 2020 was rejected. Pending interlocutory applications are also dismissed.

Manjunath Vs S. Anusha @ Lahari — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 5780F 20,./.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Manjunath S/o G.Nagendra Swamy

¶8

.PETITIONER/Respondent

¶9

AND

¶10

1 . S.Anusha @ Lahari Wo Manjunath

¶11

¶12

S.Hasthamalaka S/o Manjunath

¶13

S.Dathu S/o Manjunath

¶14

(All are resident of H.No.6-4-1 12, Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar Town & District)

¶15

State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS, Hyderabad. (Respondents 2 and 3 rep. by Rl) ...RESpONDENTS/petitioners

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrpC 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 orders dated 10.07.2023 in MC No. 6 of 2020 on the file of the Family court-cum- Ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 482 CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dated 10.07.2023 in MC No.6 of 2O2O on the fite of Family Court-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, pending

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. N.V.Sumanth

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. P.Amini Reddy, Advocate:

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶24

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.578 OF 2(J24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Revision Case is liled aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 in M.C.No.6 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court -cum- III Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, "the trial Court").

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.4 and Sri P.Animi Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No. i was solemnized with the petitioner on 05.05.2017 at Mahabubnagar as per Hindu rites and customs. It is stated that as per demand of the petitioner and his family members, parents of respondent No.1 presented Rs.3,11,OOO/cash, 1O tulas of gold and other household articles and also incurred marriage expenses of Rs.5,OO,OOO/-. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.1 lived happily for three rnonths. Later, the petitioner and his family members started to harass the respondent No. I for want of additional dowry of

Rs.2,0O,OOO/-. Thereafter,^{on 02.O3.2018respondent No'1gave} birth to respondent^{No.2,but there was no changein the attitude} of the petitioner and^{his parents and harassed respondentNo'1} for want of additional^{dowry. The petitioner used to abusethe} respondent No.l and^{quarrel with her in drunken condition artd} necked out respondent^{Nos.1 and 2 from the houseof the} petitioner. Thereafter,^{respondent No.1 lodged a report beforethe} Women Police Station,^{Mahabubnagar.On 29'lO'2O18 on} account of counseling,^{the matter was said to have been pacified} and respondent^{No.1 joined with the petitionertolead} matrimonial life.^{Later, respondent No.1 gave birth to respondent} No.3. Thereafter,^{the petitioner and his parents demanded} additional dowry of^{Rs.2,00,000/-to take back respondentNo'I} with them. Hence,^{respondent No.1 filed D'V'C No'20 of 2O2O} against the^petitioner.

¶33

The trial Court^{vide impugned order grantedan amount of} Rs.6,O0O/-^per month^{to respondent No'1 and Rs'S,OOO/-per} month each to^{respondent Nos.2 and 3 payableby the petitioner} herein from the date^{of fiting of the petition' Aggrievedby the} same, the^{petitionerpreferred the present Revision.}

¶34

I I

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bank employee and used to get Rs.70,000/- per month and he used to look after his old aged parents. He further stated that respondent No. I is earning Rs.2O,OOO/- per month by running a dance school. It is further submitted that the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial Court is huge and excessive and seeks to set aside the impugned order.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent opposing the same submitted that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the respondent Nos. I to 3. The trial Court has rightly passecl the impugned order and interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seekq' to dismiss the Revision.

¶37

7 . In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order upon taking into consideration the income of the petitioner and the living standards of the people in the present day societSr. Challenging such a meeger amount is not permissible at this stage, as the costs of living standards of the people have been

¶38

¶39

escalated to a larger^{extent. Hence, I find no reasonto interfere}

¶40

with the order^{passedby the trial Court.}

¶41

Accordingly, the Criminal^{RevisionCase is dismissed.}

¶42

As a sequel, interlocutory^{applications,if any pending, shall}

¶43

a-lso stand dismissed.

¶44

Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEP REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Family Court-cum-^{lllAdditional District and Sessions} J udge, Mahabubnagar.

¶49

One CC to SRl. P.Animi^{Reddy Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

Two CC to^{Mr. E.Ganesh, Assistant PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG)}

¶51

Two CD CoPies

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:04.12.2024

ORDER

CRLRC.No.578 ot 2024

Dismissing the Criminal Revision Case

¶58

THE s
o 06 rfe
20?5
*
I
ln

Manjunath v. S. Anusha @ Lahari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath v. S. Anusha @ Lahari

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

Ulvakani Mahesh, Adilabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

G.Sandhya Rani , M.Sandhya Rani Vs the State of Ap., and 3 Others

Parpalli Mallaiah @ Mallesh, Vs Sri. Nvk Srinivas

Pampari. Uday Kiran Vs The State of Telangana

V. Satyanarayana Goud Vs P.v.Ravi Shekar Reddy

Bodasu Satyanarayana Vs the State of A.P. and Another