Smt. P. Anuradha v. The State Of Telangana
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 202OF 2024 ac6<;Qriminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to setaside the.orderdated: 01-05-2015 in Crl. M. P. No.850 of 2010 in M. C. No.16/2006 on the file of Honble Judge, Family Court, at L. B. Nagar. Between:
1. Smt. P. Anuradha, Wo.
Housewife, (All are Fl/o District.)
2. Kum. P. Bhavana, D/o. P. Sathyanarayana, Aged about 11 years, Occ Student,
3. Master P. Akhileshwar, S/o. P. Sathyanarayana/ Aged about 9 years, Occ Student, P. Sathyanarayana, Aged about 34 years, Occ.
NFC Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy (All are Rl/o. NFC Nagar Colony, Ghatkesar, Ranga Reddy Diskict.) (Petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors Represented by their natural mother i.e., Petitioner No.1) ...PETITIONERS/PETITION ERS AND
1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Hyderabad.
2. Sri. P. Sathyanarayana, S/o. P. Narasaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Government Servant, Attender, O/o. A. P. State Council of Science and Technology, 12th floor, Eastern wing, Gagan Vihar, M. J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.
,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. THUMU CHANDRA SHEKAR(Not Present) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri VIZARATH ALl, FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI.C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER:
I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2OZ OF 2024 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections; 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P.No.850 c'f 20lO in M.C.No.16 of 2006, dated O1.O5.2O15 passed by tht: learned Judge, F arnily Court, Rargareddy District.
2 .
No representation on behalf of t1.e petitioners. I{eard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.
3.
This Court is inclined to proceed with the rnatter on rnerits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Slngh and. others Vs. State of Uttar Pradeshl n, wherr:in it was categorically held that the High Court cannot disrniss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter uithout examining the mr:rits. 4.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitione cs herein have filed maintenance case vide M.C.No.16 of 2OO9 before the Court below seeking maintenance on various grounds. I 11996; 4 Suprerne Corfi Cases 720
Respondent No.2 was remained ex parte. After considering the material available on record, the Court below has granted a sutn of Rs.2,OOO / - per month each to the petitioners, towards maintenance vide Order dated O8.O5 .2OOZ . Later, in the year 2OIO, the petitioners herein have filed Crl.M.p.No.g5O of 201O before the Court below seeking enhancement of the rnaintenance arrrolrnt from Rs.2,OOO/- per month each to Rs.1O,OOO/- per rnonth each, stating that at the time of granting of maintenance, respondent No.2 had been earning a sr-lrl of Rs.7,73O/- per montJr and at the time of filing enhancement petition, respondent No.2 has been earning a sum of Rs.14,OOO/- per month and that since tJle expenses of herself ald her children are grown up, they are entitled for the enhancement of the maintenance arrount. per contra, respondent No.
2 opposed tJle said application, denying the contents of the petition, stating that petitioner Nos.2 ald 3 are came to his house and informed him that they did not want to go to ttre house of petitioner as she was addicted to drinking alcohol, thereby, she used to neglect the children.
Order irnpugnr:rl jr-i this revision. Being aggrieved by the irnpugned Order, the petitioners have preferred this Crirninal Revision Case 5.
Learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State would submit that the learned trial Cc,urt after appreciating t he material facts before it has passed the order. Thercfore, interference of this Court at this stage is unwrrrranted. Hence seeks to rlismiss the present criminal revision case. 6.
Recorcling the submissions made by the leamecl hssistant Fublic Prosecrrtor and upon perusing the entire material ,vailable on record, I do not hnd 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. 7 .
Accordingl-y, the Criminal Revision Case is dismisserl. Miscellaneorrs Petitions, pending if aly, shall stand clo Sd/. K.SAI SHI DEPUTY R R //TRUE COPY// SECTION FICER To, '1 . The Judge, Family Court, at L. B. Nagar.
2. fwo CC to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Courtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
3. One CC to SRl. THUMU CHANDRA SHEKIIOR, Advocate [OP|.JC]
4. One CC to SRl. C.VIJAYA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] cvk/gh 5 - f., o c{) coPf€.C \G-.
\6
HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 ,,,'i.
i'l -_-'
I il ii r 20?{ I :, {r,, \*,_ \:.- ,-,i -.i:
.J.-,, !'. r' r''. if-.1
ORDER
CRLRC.No.202 of 2O24 CRLRC IS DISMISSED.
I co?q"\ &-*