Telangana High Court
CRLP/13457/2010 of G.Venkata Subba Rao Vs Gunupudi Venkata Pavana Sunanda on 31 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.13457 of 2010 ORDER: Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are none other than the wife and children of the petitioner by name G.Venkata Subba Rao, filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADACRIMINAL PETITION No.13457 of 2010
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:
Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are none other than thewife and children of the petitioner by name G.Venkata SubbaRao, filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2009 under the provisions of theDomestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). In the saidD.V.C., respondents 1 to 3 herein also filed Crl.M.P.No.1651 of2010 under Section 23(2) read with Section 20 of the Actseeking to grant an interim and ex parte order, directing thepetitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month towards food, clothes, medicines and day-to-dayexpenses, and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towardseducational fee of the children i.e., respondents 2 and 3 herein.The said petition was allowed by the trial Court by an order,dated 25.06.2010 and the same reads as under: - “Heard the petitioner. Against R-1 and R-2 NBWpending. R-3 to R-5 stay pending. In view of urgencyexpressed by Protection Officer, I feel it just and properto allow this petition. Hence, the petition is allowed asprayed for.”
Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein filedC.R.P.(SR).No.49876 of 2010 along with an applicationseeking to grant stay of the said impugned order, stating thatthe said order is ex parte order and he is not served with any notice. Subsequently, he filed the present Criminal Petitioncomplaining that the revisional Court is not deciding themiscellaneous application or the said C.R.P.
Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this Court is of the viewthat no orders need be passed in this Criminal Petition, for thereason that the Revision against the said order, dated25.06.2010, is pending before a competent Court and theRevision can as well be directed to be disposed of at theearliest.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,the District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, is directed to hearC.R.P.(SR).No.49876 of 2010 and dispose of the same at theearliest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.
31[st] December 2010DR
___________________________________
JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA