Telangana High Court
CRLRC/3319/2016 of Goguloth Mangilal Vs Smt. Md. Azeeza on 29 December 2016
SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.3319 OF 2016 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order, dated 24-05-2016 in Crl.M.P.No.97 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.442 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.3319 OF 2016
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 and 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order, dated 24-05-2016 in Crl.M.P.No.97 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.442 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad.
2. Heard both the counsel.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that the 1[st]respondent herein filed DVC No.12 of 2011 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, against the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent herein. After full-fledged trial, the trial Court allowed the said DVC directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards accommodation and Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance. The trial Court further directed the petitioner herein to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filed Crl.A.No.442 of 2016. He also filed Crl.M.P.No.97 of 2016 seeking stay of all further proceedings in DVC No.12 of 2011. The appellate Court allowed the said petition directing the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the arrears of the maintenance and alternative accommodation within two weeks from the date of that order. Hence, this revision.
5. The petitioner herein is working as a Police Constable. The appellate Court taking into consideration the financial status and other attending circumstances, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the arrears of the maintenance. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the appellate Court, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, the petitioner herein is directed to deposit the arrears of maintenance amount on or before 30-01-2017, failing which, the 1[st] respondent herein is at liberty to take appropriate steps for recovery of the amount. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this revision shall stand closed.
DATED: 29-12-2016. Hsd
_____________________
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J