Dismissed

Mallela Naveen Chakravarthi v. Methari Sushma

Telangana HC14 Oct 2024CRLRC/784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Criminal Revision Case, the High Court refused to entertain the revision petition. Citing that a substantial period of time elapsed from the impugned order's date during the revision's pendency, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the matter.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision case was dismissed; the impugned order dated 26.10.2023 was upheld by not entertaining the revision.

Mallela Naveen Chakravarthi Vs Methari Sushma — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32es ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVIS ION CASE NO:784 0F 2023

¶7

criminar Revision case fired under section 397 and 401 of cr.pc aqainst the order dated 26t10t202_3 made in crrrrrr.F.rrro.iotZiloii * in. ri'i" Bit" 9":rt^gf,11"^{MetropotiranSessionsJuAge CyUeratad, Ranga neOJv} Oistrict at L. tJ. r\agar prererred aqainst the order dated 2410212023 made in crt ivt p trto.atz of 2022 in DVC No.2r of 2016 on the file ;ithe court ot the lV Additional Junror civil Judge, cum rV Additionar Metroporitan Magrstiale, Ranga Reddy or"t*tli. a Naga r.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mallela Naveen Cha kravarthi, S/o M. Narayana, aged about 38 vears. Occ Software Engineer, R/o 1 1-3-263, New^'Malepaily, neii S,t"iir^- aJgi, Hyderabad.

¶10

AND

¶11

...Petitioner/Petitioner No.1/ (Respondent )

¶12

Methari S{shma, W/o Maliela Naveen Chakravarthi D/o M. Krishnaiah. aoert 32 years, Occ Software Engineer, R/o Flat No.3i0, 5r;;;.;;;;#;ir:r"" Lakshminagar Colony, Stre6t No 4, fotfrapet, AyAeriUaO.

¶13

... RespondenURespondent (petitioner)

¶14

2 U,Ar.r!g^{Latha, Wo D. Ravi Kiran, aggd} about 35^years, Occ. House_wife, R/o'104. Drakeford Drive Carry, rub iZSt:, USA. '--

¶15

3 D Ravi Kiran, S/o not known, aged about 40 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o^'104. Drakefordo Drive Car{r. NC 27513,'USA.'

¶16

4 H.No.1 l\4.\rrgy1q,_9/o l-3-263, New Mallepally,^{[r/. Narsaiah, aged about 65 years, -near} Sitaram bagh,'HyOerabiO. occ. Retd Service, R/o^{- - --'""}

¶17

R/o H Y, Y,tqy" No lqf-rlryi,^'1 1-3-263, New Mailepaily,^{W/oM... Narayana, aged about} neai Sitaram Aidfr, 60^years, HVoerabaOl"-- Occ. House_wife,^""''

¶18

6 V, {qr.rn,^{D/o M. Narayana, aged about30 years,} Occ. Advocate, R/o.H No.'1^'1-3-263. New tvtatiepiily. nearSrtjrim Bagh H/OurrbiO

¶19

...Respondents/petitioner No.2 to 5 (Respondents)

¶20

7 The state of relanoana through the pubric prosecutor, High court for the State of Telanganai at Hydera6ad.

¶21

¶22

(Respondents 2 to 6 hereh 31e _o1ly proforma parties. and they are not necessary parties to this Crl.R.C.)

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶25

Petition under section 4g2 of cr.p .c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support ot tne peiition, the High court may be pl-"9:99 to suspend the operation and affect of the order passedin crr.M.p.No.3r7 of 2022 in DVC No.23 of 2016, dated 24to2t2oz3 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First class, Special Mobile court cum lV Additlonal Junror civil Judge, cum lV Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L. B. Nagar, as confirmed by the order in crt.M.p.No. 1701 of zozt aatea 2d10i2o23, on the file of the court of the Metroporitan sessions Judge, cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar, and pending disposal of the above brl.R.C.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S S R Murthy

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: Sri Chekuri yadagiri

¶28

counsel for the Respondent No.7 : sri E Ganesh, Assistant pubric prosecutor

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶32

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.784 OF 20.23

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 26.IO.2023 in Crl.M.P.No. 1701 of 2023 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short, "the appellate Court").

¶35

Heard Mr.S.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chekuri Yadagiri, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶36

The brief facts of the case are that the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-lV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar (for short,^,'the trial Court") vide order dated 24.O2.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.3tZ of 2022 in D.V.C.No.23 of 2016, directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 on or before 10tr of every month from the date of the order. Assailing the same, the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 hled Crl.M.P.No.170l of 2023 before the appellate Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 79 days in filing the petition.

¶37

¶38

\ \

¶39

The appellate Court, vide order dated t2.O9.2O23, in Crl.M.P.No. 17Ol of 2023 condoned the deiay of 79 days caused in preferring the Petition on imposing the following conditions:-

¶40

"(i) The petitioner shall deposit in the trial Court an amount ' . equivalent to 50% of the arrears accumulated till this day as per the orders of the trial Court, after deducting any amount paid by the petitioner in obedience of the order of the trial Court.

¶41

(ii) The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to respondent as the litigation expenses of this petition.

¶42

The respondent shall file calculation memo within 7 days by serving a copy to the counsel for the petitioner regarding the arrears of maintenance as per the orders of the trial Court and the petitioner shalt comply with the conditions by 2A.fi.2023".

¶43

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court, under Section 309 of Cr. p.C., seeking time to comply with the conditional order dated 12.Og.2023 in Crl.M.P.No. 17Ol of 2023. But the learned Judge, appellate Court, vide order dated 26.10.2O23 in Crl.M.p.No. 1701 of 2023 dismissed the said application. Assailing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thrlt the appellate Court, erroneously allowed the application, seeking to condone the delay of (79) days by directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the accUmulated arrears of maintenance and the same is against the marldatory guidelines of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Rajinesh Vs. Nehafl. He further stated that the petitioner had lost his job as he \

t zozt \zt scc azo

\ \

I I

was unable to travei back to U.S.A.^{due to the false and vexatious} cases l-rled by respondent^{No. 1 and her familymembers.Relying} upon the decision^{passed by this Court in Chinta Vamshi Vs. The} State of Telangana2, learned^{counselseeks to allow this Revision.}

¶50

Learned counsel for unofficial^{respondentNos. I to 6 contended} that the D.V.C. is^{pending sincelast eight (8) years and the trial} Court, vide order^{dated 24.02.2023 in Crl.M.P.No-31.7 of 2022 in} D.V.C.No.23 of 2016, directed^{the petitionertopay interim} maintenance of Rs.2O,0O0/-^{per monthto respondentNo' 1 on or} before 10fi of every month^{from the date of the order. So far, no} single pie has been^{depositedby the petitioner as maintenance. He} further stated that the trial^{Court, videimpugned order, rightly} dismissed the application^{filed by petitioner underSection309 of} Cr.P.C. seeking^time to^{deposit5O% of the arrearsof maintenance} due and the interference^of this^{Court is unwarranted.Therefore, he} seeks Lo dismiss the Revision.

¶51

7 . Having regard to the^{submissions made by both the learned} counsel, without making^{any observationon the merits or demerits} of the case and upon^{considering the fact that substantial periodof} time has already elapsed^{from the date of the impugnedorder,}

¶52