Telangana High Court
CRLRC/114/2025 of Malikarjuna Vs Mekala Rakhee on 6 January 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: i14 OF 2025 Appeal Under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the award passed in M.C. No. 280 of 2021 dated
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: i14 OF 2025
Appeal Under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS against the award passed in M.C. No. 280 of 2021 dated 05-09-2024 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
Malikarjuna, S/o. Late Mekala, Aged about 42 years,0cc. Business, R/o. H.No.15- 91, P and T Colony, Near ST Hostel, Shree Kodandaram Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Saroornagar, Dilsukhnagar, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. Mekala Rakhee, Wo. Mekala Mallikarjuna D/o. Late C. Jagadish, aged about 36 years, Occ. House-hold,
2. Not named, S/o. Mekala Malikarjuna, Aged about 2 months, Minor, Both are R/o. H.No.3-1001612, Plot No. 33, North Part, Street No.1B, SSR
Nagar, Vikas Nagar, Almasgudem, Hyderabad,Ranga Reddy District, T.S.
3. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana' Hyderabad'
...RES'.NDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2425
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the above Revision case against the Orders passed in M.C. No. 280 of 2021 dated 05-09-2024 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar pending disposal of the main Revision case in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of the operation of the order dated 05-09-2024 passed in M.C. No. 280 of 2021 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagr, pending disposal of the main revision.
i
I
{
I
I
i
Counsel for l:he Petitioner: SRl. J. RAJESWAR
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 &2: SRt VENKATA PRAVEEN PATI
Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 : SRI M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following ORDER:
r)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRTDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1 14 0F 202s
DATED: 06th
NUARY. 2O2S
Between
Itlalikarjuna
AND
Mekala Rakhee and 2 others
Petitioner
Respondents
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 by the petitioner- husband assailing the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 passed in tvl.C.No.28O of 2021 by the learned Judge, Family court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court"). By the said impugned order, the learned trial court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, the wife and the minor child.
02. Heard Sri J. Rajeswar, learned counsel for the petitioner; sri Venkata Praveen pati, rearned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, i i I I i! i I I I il I -ti ir I i i!I aI I I t t, li, i i: learn,=d Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perus;ed the record.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lerarned trial Court erred in granting maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. lt was submitted that the petitioner is earning only Rs.25,000/- per month and is required to incur expenses of about Rs.50,000/- per month towards house rent, rlervant'S salary, fOOd, mediCal expenses, etc., and that he does not possess any assets. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
04. Per contra, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, along with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity and that the learned trial Court had rightly granted maintetnance to the unofficial respondents. They accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the c;iSe , and upon consideration of the submissions r) advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is evident from the record that the petitioner is the husband and the unofficial respondents are his wife and son. lt is the bounden duty of a husband to maintain his wife and child. This court is of the considered view that if the wife and child were residing with the petitioner, he would be required to incur expenses exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. consequently, no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order dated os.og.2o24 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar.
06. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. . ..._.i___ SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1- The Judge, Family court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. OFFICER
2. Two Ctls to Pu.blic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)
3. One C(l to SRl. J. RAJESWAR, Advocate [OpUC] 4- one co to sRl. VENKATA PRAVEEN pATt, Advocate [opuc]
5. Two C[) Copies kul/PSL
\ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:0610112026
ORDER
CRL.R.C.No.114 ot 2025 DISMISSING THI,] CRL.REVISION CASE \ (J THE S [l 3 i'tAP 7il2f -t \ B &