Telangana High Court
CRP/2071/2021 of Y.Sravan Kumar Vs Y.Anusha , S.Anusha on 31 December 2021
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETIT toN NO:2071 OF 2021 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETIT toN NO:2071 OF 2021
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Orderdated..01.03.2021 passed in E.P.No. 02 ol 2019 in FCop No. 249 of 2018 on the fiteof the Court of the Judge Family Court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, atWarangal.
Between:
Y. Sravan Kumar, S/o. late Jagannadham, aged 40 years, Occ. Senior Asst., inTSNPDCL, H.No.2-12-362/1 , Vijayagan-pathi [- ]Cotony KUC Gate-il,Hanamkonda, Warangal.
...Petitioner/RespondenUJDr
AND
Y.Anusha @ S.Anusha, W/o. Sravan Kumar, aged 30 years, Occ. Housewife,Husnabad, Town and Mandal, Siddipet District.
,
...RespondenuPetitioner/DHr
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operationof the order dated 01.03.2021 passed in EP No. 2 of 2019 in F.C.O.p. No. 249 of2018 by the Judge Family Court - Cum - lll Additionat District Judge, Warangat.the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operationof the order dated 01.03.2021 passed in EP No. 2 of 2019 in F.C.O.p. No. 249 of2018 by the Judge Family Court - Cum - lll Additionat District Judge, Warangat.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLACounsel for the Responde nt:---------- The Court made the following: ORDER
HONI }URABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.NAVEEN ][RAO]CIVII REVISION PETITION No.2O7l [of 2O2l]
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:
Heard Sr;Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned [counsel ][for ][the]petitioner.
2. This CivilRevision Petition is [preferred ]against [the ][order ][in]E.P.No.O2 of 20L9 in F.C.O.P.No.249 of 2O18, dated 01.03'2021.
3. The resprndent herein filed LA.Nos.381 [and 382 of ][2018 ][in]F.C.O.P.No.249of 2O 18.
4. l.A.No.38I of 2018 was fi1ed under Section [24 of the Hindu]Marriage Act,:raying the Court to grant Rs.40,000/- [towards]pendentilite mzintenance.
5. I.A.No.3l '2 oI 2Ol8 was filed under Section [24 of ][the Hindu]Marriage Act, rraying the Court to [grant ]a [sum ]of [Rs.30,000/ ][-]towards legai e. :penses to contest the O.P.
6. Both the I.As., were heard and disposed [of ][on ][the ][same day,]but by separat: orders. Though the claim in [both the ][I.As., ][were]different and tl separate orders were [passed, ][the ][Trial ][Court]'ough granted similar relief in both the I.As. Alleging that the said [orders]are not compli d, respondent herein filed E.P.No.02 [of 2019 ][in ][the]Court of Judgt Family Court-Cum-lll-Additional [District ][Judge at]Warangal. The Court issued salary warrant to the [respondent]therein and att Lched his salary of Rs.25,000/ [- ][per ][month.]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the saidorder is not va. d in law as the prayer sought in I.A.No.382 of 2018
was only for payment of lega,l expenses. Therefore , the Court couldnot have granted attachment of salary of Rs.25,000/ _ per month.
5. As fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, theorders in I.A.Nos. 381 and 382 of 201g have become final. Thoughthe prayer sought in I.A.No.381 of 2018 and I.A.No.3g2 of 2018 aredifferent, the Trial Court granted identical relief i.e., awardingRs. 10,000/- per month to respondent and Rs.5,000/- per monthto child towards maintenance and Rs.2O,OOO/_ towards litigationexpenses.6. Thus, even though the prayer was different, the Courtgranted larger relief and what is sought to be implemented is therelief granted by the Court. I therefore, do not see anv error in theCourt below directing the attachment of salary in E.p.No.O2 of2O79.ln I.A.No.382 of 2018, the Trial Court directed payment ofmonthly maintenance to wife and child and also the payment oflitigation expenses. The Civil Revision petition is accordinglydismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall standclosed.
SD/-K.AMMAJIASSISTANT REGISTRARiY/"SECTION OFFICER
,TRUE COPY//
To,1 The J_udge Family Court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, at Warangal"2. One CC to SRt JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Advojate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies4. One Spare CopyMMK,"f1 The J_udge Family Court-cum-lll Additional District Judge, at Warangal"2. One CC to SRt JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Advojate [OpUC] 3. Two CD Copies4. One Spare CopyMMK,"f DATED:3111212021
ORDERCRP.No.2071 of 2021
DISMISSING TH : CIVIL REVISION PETITION
k'g
(o1i\ [E ][S ][;a ][i]€.NJaD1 I ,ltlt 2022. [,i.]\\\. , [(..t-]