Smt. Surapaneni Saritha, v. Surapaneni Durga Srinivas,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRL.R.C.M.P. No.1152 of 2015 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1719 OF 2013 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1805 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER:
Both these Criminal Revision Cases are filed against the order, dated 20.06.2013, passed in M.C. No.242 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC - cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. Crl.R.C.M.P. No.1152 of 2015 is filed to record the compromise arrived at between the parties and close the cases. The respondent in Crl.R.C. No.1719 of 2013, who is the wife of the petitioner therein, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC - cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, seeking maintenance at Rs.25,000/- per month. By an order, dated 20.06.2013, learned Sessions Judge, awarded Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent.
Aggrieved by the same, two revision cases came to be filed by the husband and wife, respectively. Pending the revisions, both the parties filed the Crl.R.C.M.P. No.1152 of 2015 to record the compromise arrived at between them and to close the above two revision cases by setting aside the impugned order. The affidavit filed in support of the said application shows that earlier the respondent - wife filed a criminal case against the petitioner - husband and his relatives for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said case was taken on file as CC No.629 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, and the on the advise of the elders and well wishers, they settled the matter and also obtained divorce by mutual consent in OP No.
file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 18.10.2014. It is further stated that in view of the divorce obtained, they have jointly filed Crl.P. No.14919 of 2014 before this Court for quashing the proceedings in CC No.629 of 2013 against the petitioner and this Court by order, dated 23.12.2014, allowed that criminal petition by recording the compromise.
Today, both parties are present before this Court and they are identified by their counsel. The respondent stated that she has settled the matter out of Court and has no objection for setting aside the impugned order.
Having regard to the circumstances, Crl.R.C.M.P. No.1152 of 2015 is allowed. Consequently, Crl.R.C. Nos.1719 and 1805 of 2013 are allowed and the order, dated 20.06.2013, passed in M.C. No.242 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC - cum - Additional Family Court - cum - XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, is set aside. ____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J April 27, 2015.
KTL