T.Narsing v. T.Sandhya Rani And Another

\

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CBIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 398 oF 2014 Criminal Revision Case under Sectioru39T & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 25.11.2013 made in Cr|.MP.NO.OS of 2013 in tMC.No.27 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Family court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy.

Between:

T.Narsing, Sio. T.Krishna, Occ: Private Employee, Fl/o. H.No.29-705, Vinayak Nagar, Neredmet, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner/Respondent AND

1. T.Sandhya Rani, Wo. T.Narsing, aged 23 years, Rl/o. Near [\4ahila Pranganam, Sanga Reddy Town, Medak District.

2. The State of A.P., Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, Hjgh Court of l&., al Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP. NO: 682 OF 20141 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in Crl.ti/lP.No.S of 2013 in MC.No.27 of 2011 dt.25.'11.20'13 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family court-cum-Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI VENKAT RATHNAM THANNEERU Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI VIZARATH ALI ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) The Court made the following: ORDER

I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.398 OF 2OL4 ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the Order passed in Crl.M.P.No.S of 2013 in M.C.No.27 of 2OlI, dated 25.11.2013 on the file of the learned Family Court-Cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2.

Heard Sri Sundaresh, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel for the I It I petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State.

3.

A perusal of the record shows that the Revision pertains to the year 2Ol4 and the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the Order passed by the Court below stating that, the petitioner does not have any sufficient means to maintain his family members.

4.

This Court upon careful consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the submissions made by both the learned counsel is of the view that the maintenance awarded by the Court below is very meagre and appropriate. Challenging

such a meagre amount is not permissible at this stage as the cost of living standards of the people has been escalated' Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Therefore, this court is not inclined to entertajn the Revision Case as the same is devoid of merits' Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stald closed' Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTIO OFFICER \ To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum- Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge' Medak at SangareddY.

2. one ci to sRt. MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA Advocate [oPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. VENKAT RATHNAM THANNEERU Advocate [OPUCI

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)

5. Two CD CoPies.

YJP

I HIGH COURT EW,J DATED:2410712023 -. -::=:_l :\'.

'- \- i--: i: :.::',-- ., -.:t 6* ( t{$ t\ {rt c ',!) a, ,., .-' .,'/

ORDER

i.., CRLRC.No.398 of 2014 DISMISSING THE CRL.RC @o{'

,s