Disposed

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn v Sri. Vankara Ramesh

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025CRLP/7757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Minor daughter petitioned to enhance interim maintenance awarded by Family Court from Rs.10,000 to Rs.1,00,000 per month. Court considered father's stated salary versus large bank transactions and enhanced interim maintenance to Rs.15,000 per month pending adjudication of the M.C.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance enhanced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 per month pending adjudication of M.C.No.66 of 2024

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn Vs Sri. Vankara… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

rN THE HIGH couRT FoR THE STare op TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:7757 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

!.isq^V. {kghqya^{S Jocelyn,_D/oVankaraRamesh,Age. 9 years.Occ.} Student of 4'n Class, Gitanjali Group of Schools.

¶8

Petitioner is Minor and under the Care and Guardianship of Natural Mother Mrs SMT. CHEWETI (VANKARA) GRACE SANTOSH^pRtyANKA Wo Vankara Ramesh, Aged About. 39, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o plot No.48B p AND 498. Sy.No 50. Gachibowli ,Kondapur, Hyderaba-d,

¶9

...Petitioner/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri. VANKARA RAMESH, S/o Alexander. Aqed about 39 vears. Occ. Government Employee, R/o Quarter No.B-8. NlRb CAMPUS, Rai'endrdnaqar, Hyderabad .Telangana Aadhaar No. 362'1 3070 3139:

¶12

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangna

¶13

...RespondenURespondent

¶14

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the Order dated 1910312025 passed by the Judge. Family Court. Rangareddy District, at Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 in M.C. 66 of 2024 by enhancing the quantum of monthly maintenance to Rs.1,00.000/- per month. ln view of the above averments and in the interest of justice, equity and Iair play.

¶15

l.A. NO: l OF 2025

¶16

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 stay all further proceedings in MC No.66 ol 2024 on the file of the Vl Adll. Cum Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally till disposal of this Criminal Petition or else I shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by any means.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. SHIKHAR JAISWAL, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and Mr PHANI KUMAR, for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

lji I

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶21

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This criminal petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at Kukatpally in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2025 in M.C.No.66 of 2024 vide its order dated 19.03.2025, directing the respondent No.1 herein to pay an a.mount of Rs.10,0OO/- per month to petitioner (daughter of respondent No.1) towards her interim maintenance.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that nothing has been sought by the wife of respondent No.1 towards maintenallce as she is an employee drawing a monthly "4..y of Rs.53,000/-. However, daughter of the respondent No.1 i.e, petitioner herein has sought Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards interim maintenance in the M.C proceed.ings. He would. further submit that respondent No.I is an employee drawing a salary of Rs.3O,OOO/-, but his bank transactions on the contraqr would demonstrate that huge amounts of money is being

¶25

¶26

¶27

credited into his bank account. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that respondent No.1 is not having proper means to maintain his daughter. Hence, would seek to pass appropria.te orders.

¶28

opposing the s€une, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 was contractual employee in NIRDPR (National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Asst. Manager Accounts) who was drawing a salary of Rs.3O,OOO/-, which is a meager income whereas mother of the petitioner being a doctor is having sufficient source of income to maintain the petitioner. In so far as bank transactions are concerned, they are pertaining to the parents of respondent No.l as they are illiterate, certain transactions have been conducted through his bank acc.ounts and the said amounts cannot be considered as his. Hence, would seek to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused. the material available on \

¶30

¶31

record it appears that respondent^{No.1 is drawing a salary} of Rs.30,OOOf -, but his^{bank statement on the contra} shows huge financial transactions.^{Learned Assistant} Public Prosecutor would submit that^{he is a formalparty to} this criminal petition.

¶32

Accordingly, this Court^d.eems it^{appropriate to} enhance the interim maintenance^{granted by the learned} trail Court from Rs.1O,OOO /-^{pet month to Rs- 15,000/- per} month, pending adjudication^{of M-C.No-66of 2024 on the} file of Judge, Family Court,^{Rangareddy District at} Kukatpally.

¶33

With the above observations,^{the criminal petition is} disposed of.

¶34

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions pending, if any,}

¶35

shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Judge. Family Court. Rangareddy District, at Kukatpally 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Tela ngana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. One CC to Mr. SHIKHAR JAISWAL, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. M PHANI KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CD Copies

?Ac,,.

Rt./SA

."*Wi te:

I t

HIGH COURT

(

DATED: 16/0912025

ORDER

CRLP.No.7757 of 2025

liii: S 14
f.('
oa ?fiil0llzffi
*
^^-..

¶52

This Criminal Petition is Disposed of.

¶53

at\ tr\rd

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn v Sri. Vankara Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss v. Akshaya S Jocelyn v Sri. Vankara Ramesh

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

Smt. Barla Savithri Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

Syed Bhadroddin , Bader Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

D Mallaiah Vs State of Telangana

Elangandula Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Kambhampati Seenaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Venkat Shravan Kumar and another Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others