Disposed

A.Chadramohan v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Aug 2025CRLP/16226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. order and non-bailable warrant in a maintenance execution petition, claiming arrears were fully paid. The High Court directed the Family Court to verify payment records and dispose of the petition, staying the warrant meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to verify payment records and dispose of M.P.; non-bailable warrant stayed till disposal.

A.Chadramohan Vs The State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³³⁸⁵ I

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K.,SUJANA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 16226 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

{.Chadramohan,^{S/o.A.Narsimha Aged about50 years, Occ.Unemployee} R/o. H. No. 12-8-17 6l A, Mettug uda, Secu nderabad.

¶10

... Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana, At Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt. A. Pavani @ Radhika, Wo.A.Chandramohan, Age 40 years, Occ. Housewife,

¶14

Baby Greethika, D/o A Chandramohan, Aged about 22 years.

¶15

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are R/o. 30-64/3. Bharathnagar, Moula Ali, Hyderabad.

¶16

... Res po ndents/Petiti oners

¶17

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in M.P.No.178 of 2019 in M.C.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad in the interest of justice.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant in M.P.No.178 of 2019 in M.C.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the quash petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. lndira, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SMT. .'USTICE K. SUJANA

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 16226 of 2o24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the order in M.P.No.178 of 2Ol9 in M.C.No.1O of 2OL2 by the^Jud.ge, Family Court, Secunderabad.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a petition under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking^a direction from the Court to compel the petitioner to deposit the outstanding arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.42,0OO/-, which had accrued for the period spanning from March 2018 to February 2019. In response to the said petition, the trial Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

¶28

Heard Smt. Indira, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public^Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Though^notice is served upon respondent Nos.2 and 3, none appeared^{on their} behalf.

¶29

¶30

sKsrJ Crl.P.No.16226 of 2o24

¶31

Lea.rned counsel for the petitioner submit.ted that the proceedings in M.P.No.178 of 2ol9 in M.c.No.lo of 2ol2 before the Family Court, Secunderabad are unsustainable, as the petitioner had already paid the entire maintenance amount of Rs.42,OO0/- claimed by the respondents. Despite this, the petition was not closed, and a Non-Bailable warrant was issued on 2l-o8-2o24 without notice and further submitted that the petitioner had informed the court of the payments and the infructuous nature of the petition, yet coercive action was a' initiated, causing undue hardship. Therefore, prayed the court to quash the order and to set aside the non-bailable warrant issued against him.

¶32

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court shall veri$r the records pertaining to the pa5rments allegedly made by the petitioner to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as per the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the entire amount has already been paid to the said respondents. Therefore, the trial court is directed to examine and confirm the pa5rment details and, based on such verification, dispose of the petition in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

sKsi,., Crl.P.No.16226 of 2ol24

¶35

Consequently, the non-bailable warrant issued by^{the trial} Court is hereby stayed till the disposal of the^{said petition.}

¶36

With the above directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall^stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

¶40

.S. GOWRI SHANKAR STANT REGISTRAR

¶41

//TRUE COPY/

¶42

SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To, 1. Two CCs to^{Public Prosecutor,High Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶44

One CC to^{Sri lndira, Advocate[OPUC]}

¶45

Two CD^CoPies

ABK

/ f I t

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0710912025

ORDER

CRLP.No.16226 ot 2O24

¶52

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶53

El,t la

A.Chadramohan v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chadramohan v. The State of Telangana

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

Mettu Mahendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar Vs Suhash Deshpande

Somala Venkatesh Vs The state of Telangana

Sri Jyothi Swaroop Gattani Vs Sri Talakokkulwar Lachanna

Voruganti Jyothi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.B.Susheela, Vs Smt. K.Swarupa Rani