SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
Chinnan Krishore Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. M. Venu Gopal, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. K. Kishore Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel.

ORDER

Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397and401of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr. P.C.,’) feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1008/2018onthe file of the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada.

2. Sri M. Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the learned Court below suffers from perversity and material irregularity, being contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case. It is urged that the learned Family Court erred in granting maintenance without proper appreciation of the chief affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the C.P.C.,’) which itself constitutes a procedural violation. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No.2 failed to substantiate her allegations with documentary proof regarding alleged payments of cash and Adapaduchukatnam, yet the learned Court erroneously allowed the petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further argue that the present proceedings are a second round of litigation, filed only after withdrawal o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top