Telangana High Court
CRLRC/202/2024 of Smt. P. Anuradha Vs The State of Telangana on 29 December 2023
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 202OF 2024 ac6<;Qriminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to setaside
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 202OF 2024
ac6<;Qriminal [Revision Case under ][Section ][397 and ][401 of ][Cr.P.C ][to ][setaside]the.orderdated: 01-05-2015 in Crl. M. P. No.850 of 2010 in M. C. No.16/2006 onthe file of Honble Judge, Family Court, at L. B. Nagar.
Between:
1. Smt. P. Anuradha, Wo.P. Sathyanarayana, Aged about 34 years, Occ.Housewife, (All are Fl/oNFC Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar, Ranga ReddyDistrict.)Housewife, (All are Fl/oNFC Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar, Ranga ReddyDistrict.)2. Kum. P. Bhavana, D/o. P. Sathyanarayana, Aged about 11 [years, ]OccStudent,Student,
3. Master P. Akhileshwar, S/o. P. Sathyanarayana/ Aged about 9 years, OccStudent,Student, (All are Rl/o. NFC Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Diskict.)
(Petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors Represented by their natural motheri.e., Petitioner No.1)
...PETITIONERS/PETITION ERS
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex,Hyderabad.Hyderabad.
2. Sri. P. Sathyanarayana, S/o. P. Narasaiah, Aged about 40 [years, ]Occ:Government Servant, Attender, O/o. A. P. State Council of Science andTechnology, 12th floor, Eastern wing, Gagan Vihar, M. J. Road, Nampally,Hyderabad.Government Servant, Attender, O/o. A. P. State Council of Science andTechnology, 12th floor, Eastern wing, Gagan Vihar, M. J. Road, Nampally,Hyderabad.
, ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. THUMU CHANDRA SHEKAR(Not Present)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri VIZARATH ALl, FORPUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI.C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPALCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2OZ OF 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections; 397 and401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.850 c'f 20lO inM.C.No.16 of 2006, dated O1.O5.2O15 passed by tht: learnedJudge, F arnily Court, Rargareddy District.
2 . No representation on behalf of t1.e petitioners. I{eardlearned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for therespondent-State and perused the record.
3. This Court is inclined to proceed with the rnatter on rneritsof the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "BaniSlngh and. others Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshl [n, ]wherr:in it wascategorically held that the High Court cannot disrniss any appealfor non-prosecution simpliciter uithout examining the mr:rits.4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitione cs hereinhave filed maintenance case vide M.C.No.16 of 2OO9 before theCourt below seeking maintenance on various grounds.I 11996; [4 ][Suprerne ][Corfi ][Cases ][720]
Respondent No.2 was remained ex parte. After considering thematerial available on record, the Court below has granted a sutnof Rs.2,OOO / - per month each to the petitioners, towardsmaterial available on record, the Court below has granted a sutnof Rs.2,OOO / - per month each to the petitioners, towardsmaintenance vide Order dated O8.O5 .2OOZ . Later, in the year2OIO, the petitioners herein have filed Crl.M.p.No.g5O of 201Obefore the Court below seeking enhancement of the rnaintenancebefore the Court below seeking enhancement of the rnaintenancearrrolrnt from Rs.2,OOO/- per month each to Rs.1O,OOO/- perrnonth each, stating that at the time of granting of maintenance,rnonth each, stating that at the time of granting of maintenance,respondent No.2 had been earning a sr-lrl of Rs.7,73O/- permontJr and at the time of filing enhancement petition, respondentNo.2 has been earning a sum of Rs.14,OOO/- per month and thatsince tJle expenses of herself ald her children are grown up, theyare entitled for the enhancement of the maintenance arrount. percontra, respondent No.2 opposed tJle said application, denyingthe contents of the petition, stating that petitioner Nos.2 ald 3are came to his house and informed him that they did not wantto go to ttre house of petitioner as she was addicted to drinkingalcohol, thereby, she used to neglect the children. Aftercontra, respondent No.2 opposed tJle said application, denyingthe contents of the petition, stating that petitioner Nos.2 ald 3are came to his house and informed him that they did not wantto go to ttre house of petitioner as she was addicted to drinkingalcohol, thereby, she used to neglect the children. Afterconsidering the contentions of either of the parties, the Courtbelow has disrnissed the said enhancement application under the Order irnpugnr:rl [jr-i ]this revision. Being aggrieved by theirnpugned Order, the petitioners have preferred this CrirninalRevision Case
5. Learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing forrespondent-State would submit that the learned trial Cc,urt afterappreciating t he material facts before it has passed the order.Thercfore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwrrrranted.Hence seeks to rlismiss the present criminal revision case.
6. Recorcling the submissions made by the leamecl hssistantFublic Prosecrrtor and upon perusing the entire material ,vailableon record, I do not hnd any reason to interfere with the wellreasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Courtis not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Revision ,Case.
7 . Accordingl-y, the Criminal Revision Case is dismisserl.
Miscellaneorrs Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand clo Sd/. K.SAISHIDEPUTY RR//TRUE COPY//SECTIONFICER
To,'1 . The Judge, Family Court, at L. B. Nagar.'1 . The Judge, Family Court, at L. B. Nagar.
2. fwo CC to PUBLIC [PROSECUTOR, ][High ][Courtforthe ][State ][of Telangana at]Hyderabad. [OUT]Hyderabad. [OUT]
3. One CC to SRl. [THUMU CHANDRA ][SHEKIIOR, ][Advocate ][OP|.JC]4. One CC to SRl. [C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate ][OPUC]4. One CC to SRl. [C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate ][OPUC]cvk/gh 5 [- ][f., ][o ][c{) ][coPf€.C]\G-.\6\G-.\6
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDERCRLRC.No.202 of 2O24
CRLRC IS DISMISSED.
I[co?q"\]&-*
,,,'i.i'l -_-'I il ii r I20?{:,{r,,\*,_.J.-,,\:.- ,-,i-.i:!'. r' r''. if-.1