High Court for State of TelanganaCRLRC/2032/2017dismissed

Tulja Singh, Hyderabad And 3 Otrs., v. Mohanlal Choudhary, Hyd And 2 Otrs, Rep Pp.,

2017-12-05A.Shankar Narayana2 pages

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2032 OF 2017 JUDGMENT:

Precisely, the order dated 08.05.2017, in Criminal M.P. No.526 of 2016 in M.C. No.52 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Bomb Blast Case - cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, is challenged in the present Criminal Revision Case preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), whereby and whereunder, an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) was awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are parents of the revision petitioners.

2. Sri J. Narender, learned counsel, representing Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would submit that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have lands generating income to sustain themselves, but, despite the same, filed the present maintenance case and obtained interim maintenance.

3. It is his submission that sufficient assets have been standing in the names of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same can be enquired into in the maintenance case when trial takes place rather than conducting a roving enquiry in an application for interim maintenance.

ASN,J CrlRC No.2032 of 2017

4. The revision petitioners are no other than the sons of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, even keeping in view, at this stage, the cost of living on account of escalation of prices of the essential commodities, the amount of Rs.20,000/-, collectively to be paid by the revision petitioners, cannot be construed as exorbitant or excessive. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision case.

5. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order under challenge, at the admission stage itself. However, it is needless to mention that the observations made and the amounts affirmed would not come in the way of disposal of Maintenance Case by the trial Court on merits.

6. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the present revision case stand dismissed. __________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J December 5, 2017.