Telangana High Court
CRLRC/2615/2012 of Syed Kareemuddin, Vs Naveera Parveen, on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2615 of 2012 Date:31st December, 2012 Between: Syed Kareemuddin S/o.Syed Naseeruddin ..... Petitioner AND Naveera Parveen D/o.Mohd. Quadeerullah Khan & Anr. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.2615 of 2012
Date:31st December, 2012
Between:Syed Kareemuddin S/o.Syed NaseeruddinAND
..... Petitioner
Naveera Parveen D/o.Mohd. Quadeerullah Khan & Anr.
.....Respondents
***
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.2615 of 2012
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 directed against the order, dated05.11.2012, passed in M.P.No.651 of 2012 in M.C.No.153 of 2011 onthe file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial ofJHCBBC-cum-Addl. Family Court-cum-XXIII Addl. Chief Judge,Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Judge of theAdditional Family Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner toset aside the ex parte order, dated 15.5.2012, subject to the petitionerdepositing Rs.25,000/- towards arrears and Rs.2,500/- p.m. eachtowards interim maintenance to the petitioners in M.C.No.153 of 2011till disposal of the M.C.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusedthe order impugned in the revision case.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerthat the conditions imposed on the petitioner while setting aside the exparte order, dated 15.05.2012, passed in M.C.No.153 of 2011 areonerous and therefore, they are required to be modified.
4. The 1[st] respondent herein filed M.C.No.153 of 2011 claimingmaintenance and the said M.C. came to be allowed on 15.05.2012granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the wife andRs.1,500/- p.m. to the daughter. The wife and the daughter filedCrl.M.P.No.388 of 2012 for recovery of the arrears of Rs.93,500/-. Thenthe petitioner herein filed M.P.No.651 of 2012 under Section 126(2)Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, dated 15.05.2012 passed inM.C.No.153 of 2011. The learned Judge of the Additional Family Court,on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allowthe petition subject to the conditions stated supra. It is contended by thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the conditions imposedon the petitioner are onerous and therefore, they are required to bemodified.
5. As seen from the order impugned in the revision case, the arrearsof maintenance payable to the wife and the daughter are Rs.93,500/-. Therefore, the conditions imposed on the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/-towards arrears of maintenance cannot be said to be onerous. Theinterim maintenance granted by the learned Judge of the AdditionalFamily Court pending M.C.No.153 of 2011 is Rs.2,500/- p.m. each tothe wife and the daughter, in the given facts and circumstances cannotbe said to be onerous.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at theadmission stage. However, the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court is directed to dispose of M.C.No.153 of 2011 as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copyof this order.
Date:31[st] December, 2012.
______________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
cs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Date:31st December, 2012