Smt.Jangamaipeta Padma, v. Jangamaipeta Nagaiah And Another,

| 3251 l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1375 of 2009 Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 4O1 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 16-06-2009 made in MC.No.241 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. Between:

Smt.Jangamaipeta Padma, W/o. Nagaiah .J., Age: 50 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Yellareddy (V), Presently H.No. 8-4-367/69, CH.Jairaj, Vinayakrai Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner

AND '1 . Jangamaipeta Nagaiah, S/o. Late Bagaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Govt.Employee, Watchman in Agriculture Department, Fl/o. Near Police Station, Yellareddy (V) & (M), Nizamabad District.

...Respondent

2. The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

...Respondent-2

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SAI BABU Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE No.1375 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is fi1ed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 10.06.2009 in M.C.No.241 of 2OO7.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for t I re spondent-State.

3. The petitioner herein is alleged wife of the l"t respondent herein. She has filed a case before the Court below seeking maintenance. However, after trial, Family Court Judge found that the petitioner was not able to prove marriage itself and the marriage was disputed by the l"t respondent herein.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that though notices were sent to the pei-itioner, she has not come forward to prosecute her case. 5.

Having gone through the record, the essential ingredients of seeking maintenance that there is a valid

marriage between the wife and the husband was not proved. In the said circumstances, denial by the Family Court to grant maintenance cannot be interfered with. 6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUW REGISTRAR .51>- SECNd OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family Court cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad'

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

3. One CC to SRI K. SAI BABU, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies Karn/gh ot

I HIGH COURT DATED:21108t2024 1 tl E ( T4 oo nL { 0t 2U

ORDER

(:

.d* PA * ,) I tl CRLRC.No.13tS of 2009 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE OAP \ 1o\ l0nh