Dismissed

Smt. K. Sudha, and 3 Others, v. K. Satya Narayana, and Another

Telangana HC4 Mar 2024CRLRC/703/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding maintenance, the Telangana High Court dismissed the petitioners' request to enhance maintenance amounts directly. The Court held that the proper procedure is to file an application under Section 125(4) CrPC before the trial court rather than seeking intervention via Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed; liberty was granted to approach the trial court to file an application for enhancement under Section 125(4) CrPC.

Smt. K. Sudha, and 3 Others, Vs K. Satya Narayana… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IVIONDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 703 0F 2013

¶7

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 4O1 of CrPC., against^{the orders} d1.23.1.2013 in M.C.No.136 of 2O1O on the file of the^{Additionalmetropolitan} Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Addl^{Judge, Family Court/XXl!l} A.C.J. Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

SMT- K. SUDHA, Wo Satya Narayana, Occ Housewife, Rlo^1-10-39211 Brahmanwadi Begumet, H yderabad.

¶10

Kum Priyanka,, D/o Satya Narayana, Occ Student, being minor rep.^by natural mother petition No. 1 K. Sudha, R/o 1-10-39211 Brahmanwadi Begumet, Hyderabad.

¶11

Kum Alekhya,, D/o Satya Narayana, Occ Student, being minor rep. by natural mother petition No.1 K. Sudha, fuo 1-10-39211 Brahmanwadi Begumet, Hyderabad.

¶12

K.Sadhana,, D/o Satya Narayana, Occ Student, being minor rep. by natural mother petition No.1 K. Sudha, R/o 1-10-39211 Brahmanwadi Begumet, Hyderabad.

¶13

Petitioners 2 to 4 ate minors are being Rep. by natural mother i.e Petitioner No- 1 K. Sudha.

¶14

AND

¶15

...PETTTTONER(S)

¶16

K. SATYA NARAYANA, AND ANOTHER,, S/o Balaiah, Occ Political Leader, Rlo 2-2-646161112, Pamula Basthi, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

t.A.NO.1 0F 2013:

¶20

Petition under Section'151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circtrmstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto direct} the respondent to continue to^pay the^{sum of Rs.6,0C0lper month as offered by him} by way of interim maintenance or^{otherwise obligationstowards petitioners, pending} disposal of Crl.R.C.No.703 of 2013,^on the^{file of theHigh Court.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):^{SRl. M PRAVEENKUMAR}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶25

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.7O3 of 2013

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners herein against the^judgment passed in M.C.No.136 of 2OlO, dated 23.O1.2013 on the fiie of the^learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short "trial Court").

¶28

Heard the learned counsei for the petitioners as^well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing^for respondent No.2-State.

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that^petitioner No.l herein is the wife of respondent^{No.1. Their marriagewas} solemnized on 14.04.1994, at^{Yadagiriguttaand out of} their wed-lock, they were^{blessed with three childreni.e.,} petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Later on,^{respondentNo.1 started} harassing petitioner No.1 both^{mentally and physicallyfor} additional dopvry arld he also^{neglected petitioners.On}

¶30

¶31

-F-E!-\ffi ., ' .1

¶32

06.06.20|0 , they were driven out^{of the houseby 1,he1} 't respondent, as such, petitioner^{No.1 lodgcclareport} against respondent No.1 on 07.06.2OlO^{in Amberpet Police} Station and the police registered a^{case in Crim,: No.221 of} 2OlO. Since respondent^No. 1^{neglected trtma-intain} petitioners and as petitioner No. I is a household lady^and has no means to maintain herself and her^{childrer-r, she} filed M.C.No.136 of 2O1O seeking to award Rs.50,OOO/-^per month towards monthly maintenance, stating that respondent No.1 is having properties worth crores^of rupees and earning lakhs of rupees as a political leader.

¶33

Respondent No. t has filed his counter denying the allegations made by petitioner No.1 regarding ltarassment for additional dowry, neglected the petitioners an<l also denied his income and properties. Further, respondent No.1 is ready to pay Rs.6,OOO /- per month to all the petitioners towards their maintenance

¶34

The learned Magistrate after appreciatin g the oral and documentary evidence and facts before it LLas allor,ved

¶35

¶36

the M.C. awarding a sum of Rs.6,000 l- per month to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 towards their maintenance payable by respondent No.1 from Ol.O2.2O13. Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the payment of monthly maintenance in the bank account o1 1.t petitioner. The respondent should make the payments of monthly maintenance to the petitioners on or before loth of every month. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed the present criminal revision case for enhancement of maintenance.

¶37

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has granted a meager amount as monthly maintenance as the cost of living standards of the people have been escalated in today's context. Hence, seeks for enhancement of monthly maintenance

¶39

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that the petitioners without filing appropriate application for enhancement of maintenance before the trial Court has filed revision case before this Court, which is misconceived and interference

oF this Court at this stage is unwarranted.^{Hence, seeks to} dismiss the criminal revision^case.

¶44

B. tn the light of the above discussion, this^{(lourt is not} inclined to interfere with the order^{passedby the trial} Court at this stage, granting the liberty^{to th,: petitioner} Nos. 1 to 4 to approach the appropriate trial^{Cour:t and} make necessary application under Section^{12|z (llCr.P.C.} for enhancement of maintenance.

¶45

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶46

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶47

clo sed.

¶48

sd/- T.^SRINI v S DEPUTY REGIST

¶49

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Addl.^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-Cum-Addl'} ' irJq", Fr.ilv iourUXXlll A C J Hyderabad'

¶52

z liSl*t" of Andhra^{pradesh,, Rep by its public prosecur.or,Hiirh court of} A.P., at^{Hyderabad.c o'r)}

¶53

One^CC to^{SRl. titl PRAVEENKUIVARAdvocate [OPUCI}

¶54

Two CD^CoPies

rlr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410312024

't
e I t1i :r',. . a
(o
6
o P
1 2 J Ut )02r
a
.<br>s<br>t
DAs T C r-O

¶59

ORDER

¶60

CRLRC.No.703 ol 2013

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRLR.C

¶62

+dA ilil\w

Smt. K. Sudha, and 3 Others, v. K. Satya Narayana, and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Sudha, and 3 Others, v. K. Satya Narayana, and Another

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

P.Nagaraju Vs The State of A.P.

Shyamala Linga Reddy, Vs Smt. Allipurapu Sandhya Rani

Andem Mohan Reddy Vs the State of A.P.

Md.Muzammil, Nizamabad Dt., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

C.Jangaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

The State of a.P., Rep.by the P.P., Vs Boda Ramesh and 2 Others