P.M.Satya Prasad v. P.Srivani
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR :PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3528 OF 20ffi Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2018 in M.C.No.56 of 2015 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-Cum Addl. Family Court-Cum-Xxlll Addl. Chief Judge-Cum lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Between:
P.M.Satya Prasad, S/o P.S.Murthy, aged 42 years, Occ. Project Director, Unison Consultihg Pvt.Ltd., 8, Eu Tong Sen Street, H.No.14-94, The Central Singpore. Petitioner/Respondent AND
1. P.Srivani, W/o P.M.Satya Prasad, aged 38 years, Occ. H6use wife, Rl/o H.No.B-2-3'10/A/10/B, lbrahim Nagar, Road No.10, l.A.S. Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
2. P.Gagan Datta, S/o P.M.Satya Prasad, aged 9 years, Rep. by natural guardian and Mother P.Sravni.
3. The State ofTelangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutorat Hyderabad' . Respondents/Petitioners !ANO: 2OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 03.05.20'18 in M.-C.No.56 of 2015 passed by the Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trial of Jubilee Hills car Bomb Blast case Cum Addl. Family Court Cum XXlll Addl. Chief Judge, Cum lX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad pending disposal of the CdRC. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad. Counsel for the Respondent: Chekuri Yadagiri -NACounsel for the Respondent 3 : Asst. Public Prosecutor. The Court made the following: ORDER
I {-l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.3528 OF2018 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner herein aggrieved by the order in M.C.No.56 of 2015, dated 03.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief ]udge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions |udge, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2.
Heard Ms.Ramya, learned counsel representing on behalf of the revision petitioner as well as respondent. 3.
Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the record. 4.
The brief facts of the case are that the marria6;e of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was performed on 12.04.1998 at Gurajada Kalakshetram, Kalyana Mandapam, Vishakapatnam. That on the demand made by tho Detitiq4qr and his family
members the father of the respondent No.1 gave a cash of Rs.1,00,000/-,2 ttlas of gold ring, jewellery worth of Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondent No.1 and performed the marriage by spending Rs.4,00,000/- that out of the wedlock the respondent No.1 was blessed with two male children on 02.03.1999 and Q7.12.2005, that the first child Sai Kiran was bom at Hyderabad and the second child was born in Singapore, that the respondent No.1 has suffered mental and physical torture at the hands of the petitioner in Singapore from 2001 to December, 2013 that he had utilized the Stree Dhanam of Rs.3,50,000/- of the respondent No.1 for his personal needs and during the stay at in laws house at Mehdipatnam, the respondent No.
1 and petitioner never allowed to go out even for a movie and she was never allowed to spend leisure time with her husband and her father in law always used to shout against her. In the early months of the year 2000 on one day, when the respondent No.1 contradicted a point in a general discussion, the father in law of the respondent No.1 suddenly took a huge wooden log and threatened the respondent No.1 that he would kill her and abused her in filthy and provocative language.
5.
The respondent along with his parents and his paternal uncle Mr.P.V.Subba Rao subjected her to cruelty and attacked the respondent No.1 during |une, 2013 and necked her out from the matrimonial home. In June, 2073 the respondent No.'[ and the petitioner came along with their children to India on pilgrimage and during their stay, the petitioner and his parents tried to snatch away the locker key of the respondent No.1 on that a dispute arose between them. Then, the father of the petitioner called the patemal uncle P.V.Subha Rao, who assaulted the respondent No.1 and subjected her to cruelty and finally they all necked her out of the house and that after much persuasion made by the father of the respondent No.1, the petitioner and his parents have accepted the respondent No.1 to stay with the petitioner at Singapore.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1 went to Singapore on22.12.2023 on being born the expenses by her father. After completion of 106 class exams during March, 201.4, the petitioner promised the respondent No.1 to come back to India in May, 2014, but the respondent in keeping up the said assurance played fraud on her.
No.1, but also willfully failed to discharge his duties as husband and as father of the children. The respondent No.1 and her children are forced to stay at her parent's house that with great difficulty, the respondent No.1 brought her elder son Sai Kiran admitted in to the Geetanjali Public School, Begumpet and also got admission of her younger son in Delhi School of Excellence,Baniara Hills. The respondent No.1 has no independent sources of income. The elder son Sai Kiran intended to stay with the respondent at Singapore due to his health conditions as the Indian atmosphere was not suiting to his health that he was frequently suffering from health problems. The petitioner had agreed to take back the elder son to Singapore. The respondent No.1 has no means to maintain herself and respondent No.2 and requires Rs.1,50,000/- per month towards their maintenance.
6.
The trial Court aide order dated 03.05.2018 in M.C'No'56 of 2015 has allowed the M.C. granting maintenance of a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.15,000/' to respondent No.2 on or before 05tt'of every succeeding month,
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State would submit that the learned trial Court after appreciating the material facts before it has passed the order. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal revision case. 8.
Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Court below. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Criminal Revision Case. 9.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMANA K DEPUTY REG RISHNA I,SJBAR //TRUE COPY// s SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blas case-Cum-Addl. Family Court-Cum-XXlll Addl. Chief Judge-Cum-lX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad. (OUT)
3. One CC to SRl. K R K V PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRl. CHEKURI YADAGIRI Advocate IOPUC]
5. TWO CD copies.
e
/ HIGH COURT DATED:2610412024 1 E l-,:
()( s ^?,, * ::
l-_ .j Q)
ORDER
I =\- a:
,',: t/ tr CRLRC.No.3528 of 2018 t !
J DISMISSING THE CRLRC \