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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 64342

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
Rudra Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Rudra Umarani – Respondent
CRP 3556/2025



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3556 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by the I Addl. Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short the ‘Family Court’), in I.A.No.883 of 2024 in I.A.No.391 of 2019 in O.P.No.569 of 2019, decided on 08.01.2025.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Family Court dismissed the I.A.No.883 of 2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking modification of the orders passed in I.A.No.319 of 2019 which was decided on 17.04.2021.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent had filed an O.P. under the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as maintenance from the date of the petition and also Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses. Initially, I.A.No.319 of 2020 was filed by the respondent seeking for an interim maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. The said I.A. stood allowed by the Family Court on 17.04.2021 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as an interim maintenance. The order passed by the Family Court on 17.04.2021 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner before this High Court, which stood finally dismissed on 18.07.2022. Thereafter, the O.P. had proceeded and is presently at the trial stage. The evidence of the respondent got recorded in the month of December, 2023 and she was finally cross-examined in February, 2024. Pending the further evidence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.883 of 2024 seeking for modification of the order dated

17.04.2021 in I.A.No.391 of 2019.

5. It was vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, the Family Court dismissed the I.A.No.883 of 2024, leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition.

6. The instant Civil Revision Petition is one which was filed on 23.09.2025 i.e. after nine (09) months from the date of the impugned order being passed by the Family Court.

7. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant Civil Revision Petition on two grounds. Firstly on the ground of delay laches, as the Civil Revision Petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been filed after nine (09) months and in the meanwhile, the O.P. before the Family Court has itself progressed substantially. Second ground being that the order dated 17.04.2021 against which modification was sought for was put to test in Civil Revision Petition No.1037 of 2021 and the said Civil Revision Petition itself got dismissed on 18.07.2022 making the interim order granted by the Family Court final till the trial is concluded. In between, the respondent was examined partly in December, 2022, and remaining cross-examination was done in February, 2024.

8. It is based on these averments in the evidence and cross- examination that the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

9. This Court is not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the trial itself has progressed substantially and filing the modification application would lead to protracting the matter. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed at this juncture directing the Family Court seized of O.P.No.569 of 2019 to try and conclude the O.P. itself as expeditiously as possible.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 14.11.2025 GSD

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 Back to top