Giridhar Podishetty v. P. Geetha Lakshmi

I [329s] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 481 OF 2021 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order dated. 16-07-2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.202 of 2020, M.C NO. 35 of 2020 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court Judge at Secunderabad, and allow the revision petition.

Between:

Giridhar Podishetty, S/o. Late Sri Krishna, Aged about. 50 years, Occ. Nil, R/o. Plot No. 52, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Nehru Nagar, Picket, Secunderabad - 500 026, Telangana State.

...Petitioner

AND 'l . P. Geetha Lakshmi, Wo. P.Giridhar, aged about 47 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Plot No, 52, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Nehru Nagar, Picket, Secunderabad - 500 026, Telangana State

2. Master Dev Manikanta, S/o. P.Giridhar, aged about 't 3 years, Occ, Student, being Minor Represented by mother and guardian Household, R/o. Plot No. 52, First Floor, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Nehru Nagar, Picket, Secunderabad - 500 026, Telangana State.

by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at

3. The State of Telangana, Rep Hyderabad.

..Respondents lA NO: 'l OF 2021 lN CRL.RC.NO.481 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed an support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated. 16-07-2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.202 of 2020, M.C.No.35 of 2020, on the file of Hon'ble Family Court Judge at Secunderabad.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

SRl. D RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. SHITAL BHATIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VVS'SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.481 of 2O2L ORDER:

The present Revision is frled aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.2O2 of 2O2O tn M.C.No.35 of 2O2O on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad (for short, "the trial Court") wherein and whereby the learned Judge of trial Court has directed the petitioner to deposit interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/-(rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) per month to the 2"d respondent from the date of petition, payable into the bank account of the l"t respondent on or before 10th of every month and also directed the petitioner to clear off the arrears of maintenance within four months from the date of the order in Crl.M.P.No.2O2 of 2O2O in M.C.No.3S of 2O2O. 2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. They were blessed with one son i.e., respondent No.2 out of their wedlock. As the petitioner neglected his wife and child, they filed maintenance case against

\ \ the petitioner. The trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2027 in Crl.M.P.No.2O2 of 2O2O in M.C.No.3S of 2O2O directed the petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs.2S,OOO l- p., month as maintenance payable to respondent No.2 from the date of the petition, payable into the bank account of respondent No.1 on or before lOth of every month. Petitioner is also directed to clear off the arrears of maintenance within four months from the date of that order. Assaiiing the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision seeking to set aside the impugned order. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that respondent No.1 concealed her profession and ought to have considered the list of documents and medical certificates filed by the petitioner and ought to have considered the original school fee receipt filed by I the petitioner.

5.

This Court perused the entire material available on record including the impugned order. This Court, as per the findings recorded vide order dated 27.04.2022 in Crl.R.C (SR) No.3198 of 2022 held that a revision application is not maintainable against an interim order in the light of Section 397(21 of the Cr.P.C; and

l that against an interlocutory order, a revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, without looking into the merits and demerits of this criminal revision case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present criminal revision case at this stage, as the proceedings hereunder are squarely covered by the said order.

6.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the revision petitioner is at liberty to work out their remedies, as available under law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Family Court Judge at Secunderabad.

2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad'(OUT)

3. One CC to SRI D. RAMAKRISHNA, Advocate IOPUC] 4 One CC to Mis. SHITAL BHATIA Advocate [OPUC]

5. One CC to SRI WS.SATYANARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] o Two CD Copies RU/gh w

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310912024 l l

ORDER

J) l) 2 5 [tll 202,1 CRLRC.No.481 of 2021 Otr THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS DISMISSED