Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
M.a. Kaleem - Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 230 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2020
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 125(1) - Arrears of maintenance - Seeking interim maintenance - Lower Court had allowed aforesaid application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein under Section 125(1) seeking interim maintenance and directed revision petitioner herein to pay per month to respondent No.2 and each to respondent Nos.3 to 5 per month from date of said petition - Several grounds are raised for quashing of impugned order, at hearing, learned counsel for petitioner restricted his prayer to reduce quantum of maintenance payable by revision petitioner herein – Held, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and impugned order is modified to extent that revision petitioner shall pay per month to respondent Nos.2 to 5 towards interim maintenance on or before 5th of every month and he shall also pay arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 13,000/- per month, which is stated to be due from onwards, within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order- Respondent No.2 is entitled to withdraw deposited amount on her behalf and on behalf of children i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5 - As main M.C. is of yearlower Court is directed to dispose of aforesaid M.C. on its file expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from date of receipt of a copy of this order - Criminal Revision Case is disposed of - Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall also stand closed.
JUDGMENT
G. Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills car bomb Blast Case-cumFamily Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX AMSJ, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.945 of 2018 in M.C.No.126 of 2018.
2. By the impugned order, the lower Court had allowed the aforesaid application filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. seeking interim maintenance and directed the revision petitioner herein to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs. 3,000/- each to respondent Nos.3 to 5 per month from the date of the said petition.
3. Though several grounds are raised for quashing of the impugned order, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer to reduce the quantum of maintenance payable by the revision petitioner herein.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without delving into the merits, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the impugned order is modified to extent that the revision petitioner shall pay Rs. 13,000/- per month to respondent Nos.2 to 5 towards interim maintenance on or before 5th of every month and he shall also pay the arrears of maintenance @ Rs. 13,000/- per month, which is stated to be due from July, 2019 onwards, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.2 is entitled to withdraw the deposited amount on her behalf and on behalf of the children i.e., respondent Nos.3 to 5.
5. Learned counsel appearing for both parties sought for a direction to the Court below to dispose of the aforesaid M.C. expeditiously.
6. As the main M.C. is of the year 2018, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the aforesaid M.C. on its file expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs.
8. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
