##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.2792 of 2025 AND I.A.No.2 of 2024 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4263 of 2013 Date: 24.07.2026 CONTEMPT CASE No.2792 of 2025 Between:

Anjana Taggarse Motupalli … Petitioner And Sreenivas Motupalli … Respondent I.A.No.2 of 2024 IN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4263 of 2013 Between:

Anjana Taggarse Motupalli … Petitioner And Sreenivas Motupalli … Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Smt. Anjana Taggarse Motupalli, the petitioner, (Party-in-Person) and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

2. Contempt Case No.2792 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions in the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4263 of 2013.

3. I.A.No.2 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.4263 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the same order dated 15.10.2024, on the ground that it suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record.

4. Both matters arise out of the same order dated 15.10.2024, are between the same parties, and involve common questions of fact and law. The contempt case also depends upon that order continuing to exist. This Court has therefore heard both matters together and disposes of them by this common order.

5. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Contempt Case. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6. The facts giving rise to the Contempt Case and the Review Application, briefly stated, are as follows:

6.1 Matrimonial disputes arose between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband, and O.P.No.1503 of 2010 came to be filed before the learned I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad.

6.2 During the pendency of that Original Petition, the petitioner/wife filed I.A.No.918 of 2010 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking interim maintenance for herself and for the two daughters.

6.3 By order dated 27.06.2013, the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, partly allowed I.A.No.918 of 2010 and directed the respondent/husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife and Rs.15,000/- per month each to the two daughters, pending disposal of O.P.No.1503 of 2010.

6.4 Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/husband filed C.R.P.No.4263 of 2013 before this Court.

6.5 By order dated 15.10.2024, this Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition. It set aside the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner/wife, confirmed the maintenance granted to the two daughters, and directed the respondent/husband to pay the entire arrears of maintenance payable to the daughters till they attained majority, within two months.

6.6 Alleging that the respondent/husband did not comply with this direction within the time given, and that he did so despite the undertaking recorded in the same order, the petitioner/wife filed Contempt Case No.2792 of 2025.

6.7 The petitioner/wife also filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 in C.R.P.No.4263 of 2013 seeking review of the order dated 15.10.2024. Her case is that the order denied her maintenance on a ground not permitted in law and on a premise that is factually incorrect, that it restricted the daughters' entitlement to the date of majority, and that it was passed without considering the governing statutory provisions and the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6.8 During the contempt proceedings, on 06.11.2025, the respondent/husband produced two demand drafts of Rs.6,00,000/- each, totaling Rs.12,00,000/-, in