Monday, 20, May, 2024
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sri Sudheer Potharlanka vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 33 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 33 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2024

Telangana High Court

Sri Sudheer Potharlanka vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 3 January, 2024

                                            1




        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos. 1315 and 1870 OF 2017

COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Revision Cases are filed under Sections 397

and 401 of Cr.P.C aggrieved by the Judgment dated 09.02.2017

passed in Crl.A.No.58 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

respondent-State and perused the record.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that initially the petitioner

herein preferred crl.R.C.No.1315 of 2017 assailing the impugned

Judgment on certain grounds, however, at later point of time, he

preferred another revision vide Crl.R.C.No.1870 of 2017 assailing

the very same impugned Judgment with some more grounds.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on

merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1",

1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 2

wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot

dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter without

examining the merits.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2002 the

marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.2 was performed

and out of the wedlock they were blessed with respondent Nos.3

and 4 and that since the beginning of the marriage the petitioner

used to harass her and also threatened her to give divorce. In the

month of April 2013, the petitioner necked her out from his

house, thereby, she used to reside in the house of her brother at

Secunderabad. The petitioner is a software engineer in Oracle

Solution Services India Private Limited, Bangalore and earning a

sum of Rs.1,20,000/- per month and he is having several

properties in various places. Even though the petitioner has

been leading luxurious life, she along with her children are

depriving for shelter and for necessary amenities. Thereupon, the

respondents herein filed D.V.C.No.125 of 2013 on the file of V

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3

5. During the course of enquiry the respondents herein filed

five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and the details thereof are

as follows:

(a) Crl.M.P.No.988 of 2013 is filed seeking interim

residence order directing the petitioner herein to provide

suitable accommodation at Hyderabad for her and her

children or alternatively pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-

towards rent;

(b) Crl.M.P.No.993 of 2013 is filed seeking an amount of

Rs.50,000/- towards interim maintenance to her and her

children for attending their basic necessities;

(c) Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2013 is filed seeking to restrain the

respondents from alienating the shared house hold of the

petitioner, viz. Flat No.7063, Shoba Daffodil Apartments,

Soma Sundra Palya, HSR Lay out, Section II, Bangalore

and also his other properties i.e., one bed room

residential flat at Ahmedabad, Gujarat, residential house

bearing No.4-5-32/23, Vidyanagar, Ist lane, Extension,

Guntur and two open house plots admeasuring 300 Sq. 4

yds situated at Ragala Resorts, Bibinagar near

Ghatkesar, Hyderabad.

(d) Crl.M.P.No.991 of 2013 is filed seeking to restrain the

petitioner from renouncing his rights in the shared

house hold of the respondent, viz. Flat No.7063, Shoba

Daffodil Apartments, Soma Sundra Palya, HSR Lay out,

Section II, Bangalore

(e) Crl.M.P.No.992 of 2013 is filed seeking to restrain the

petitioner from alienating the shared house hold of the

respondent, viz. Flat No.7063, Shoba Daffodil

Apartments, Soma Sundra Palya, HSR Lay out, Section

II, Bangalore.

6. The trial Court after considering the submissions made by

both the parties, allowed Crl.M.P.No.988 of 2013 granting a sum

of Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards rent;

allowed Crl.M.P.No.993 of 2013 granting a sum of Rs.10,000/-

per month to respondent No.2 and a sum of Rs.1,000/- per

month each to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and further directed the

petitioner to pay the school fees of the children and meet the 5

expenses of books and uniform; allowed Crl.M.P.Nos.991 and

992 of 2013 restraining the petitioner from alienating the shared

house hold of the respondents, viz. Flat No.7063, Shoba Daffodil

Apartments, Soma Sundra Palya, HSR Lay out, Section II,

Bangalore until further restrained from renouncing or

transferring his rights in the said flat in favour of third party;

dismissed Crl.M.P.No.990 of 2013 in so further reliefs of

restraining the petitioner from alienating the properties situated

at Ahmedabad, Guntur and Bhongir and in so far as the relief of

restraining the respondents from attending his house at

Bangalore.

7. Being not happy with the said orders, the respondents

herein preferred an appeal before the appellate Court vide

D.V.Appeal No.58 of 2014. After considering the submissions of

both the parties and the entire material available on record the

appellate Court allowed the said appeal in part, enhancing the

maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- from Rs.10,000/- to

respondent No.2 and to Rs.2,500/- from Rs.1,000/- to

respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Rs.10,000/- from Rs.7,000/-

towards rent from their residence from the date of the lower 6

Court order dated 05.09.2013. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner

herein has preferred these criminal revision cases before this

Court.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for

respondent-State would submit that the learned appellate Court

after appreciating the material facts before it has passed the

order. Therefore, interference of this Court at this stage is

unwarranted. Hence seeks to dismiss the present criminal

revision cases.

9. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available

on record, I do not find 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 Cases.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 03.01.2024 VSU

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 
 
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

 
 
 
 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Campus Buzz