D.Arjun Yadav v. D.Nitya Sri
[ 3251 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 2101 OF 2018 Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C order dated: 12-03-2018 in MC.No.224 ot 2013 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
D. Arjun Yadav, S/o D. Yadaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Diary Business, Rl/o H.No.2-1 17l5/A, Hussain Shavali Darga Shaikpet, Ranga Reddy District.
...Petitioner/respondent
AND
1. D.Nitya Sri, D/o Arjun Yadav, Aged about 9 years, Occ: Student
2. D.Dharma Teja, S/o Arjun Yadav, Aged about 07 years, Occ: Student
3. D.Sahi Teja, Sio Arjun Yadav, Aged about 6 years Respondents '1 to 3 are being minors Rep. by their Grandfather M.Raghu Ramulu Yadav All arc No.2O-1-37011, Golla Kidiki Puranapul, Old City, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
4. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh
...Respondents/Complainant
lA NO: 2 OF 2018 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 all further proceedings in M.C.No.224 of 2013 on the file of the Judge Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, Ranagreddy District, pending disposal of the above Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J. ANANTARAM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SR! V. RAGHUNATH Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVI ION CASE No.2101 of 2o18 ORDER:
The petitioner/husband is questioning the granting of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month each to the 2nd and 3'd respondents.
2. The respondents filed the application seeking maintenance. The learned Family court Judge found that the children were neglected and the husband was not taking care of them. In such circumstance, the Family court deemed it appropriate to grant maintenance to the children. I do not find any infirmity to the order passed by the Family Court. 3.
Further the amount of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- each to the 2nd and 3'd respondents is meager in the present cost of living. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Family Court Judge and the present Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismlssed' No costs' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. I Sd/-M.RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTR,AR //TRUE coPYil ArD sEcrioN oFFrcER To,
1. The Judge, Family Court, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (with records, if any)
2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.(OUT)
3. One CC to SRI J. ANANTARAM, Advocate tOpUCI
4. One CC to SRI V. RAGHUNATH, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies kam gr.- i1
HIGH COURT DATED:1010712023 ,J i,,-:
0 2 sEP 2tr9
ORDER
CRLRC.N0.2101 ot 2018 .t* DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE PPLq, +(48