DVC- interim maintenance to the child only - As seen from the counter and documents filed by him, R.1 has pronounced divorce to the petitioner No.1 and he has also deposited the amounts with the Quazi. Hence, it is clear that there is no marital relationship between R.1 and petitioner No.1. Though petitioner No.1 has contended that R.1 is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.24,000/- per month, but she has not filed any document in proof of income of R.1. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and occupation of R.1 and taking into consideration the present day cost of living for the sustenance of the minor petitioner, I am inclined to allow this petition partly.


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013
Date:30th January, 2013
Between:
M.A.Bakhi S/o.M.A.Rasheed
....Petitioner
(in both cases)
And
M.A.Rafee S/o.M.A.Bakhi & Ors.
....Respondents
(in both cases)
***

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013

COMMON ORDER:

        These two Criminal Revision Cases are directed against the common order, dated 04.09.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.80 and 91 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar.

2.     The petitioner is the former husband of Asiya Khanam. Their minor son is M.A.Rafee, aged about 3 years.  The ex-wife and the minor son filed D.V.C.No.97 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking maintenance, return of dowry amount and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- etc.  They also moved Crl.M.P.No.748 of 2012 under Section 23 of the Act seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- p.m. each.  The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, refused to grant interim maintenance to the ex-wife, while allowing interim maintenance to the son at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m., by order, dated 10.05.2012.  Relevant portion of the said order needs to be noted and it is thus:
          “Heard.  A perusal of the record and the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1 prima facie shows that R.1 along with his family members has harassed her and at last necked her out of their house. As seen from the counter and documents filed by him, R.1 has pronounced divorce to the petitioner No.1 and he has also deposited the amounts with the Quazi.  Hence, it is clear that there is no marital relationship between R.1 and petitioner No.1.  Though petitioner No.1 has contended that R.1 is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.24,000/- per month, but she has not filed any document in proof of income of R.1.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and occupation of R.1 and taking into consideration the present day cost of living for the  sustenance of the minor petitioner, I am inclined to allow this petition partly. 
          In the result, the petition is partly allowed and R.1 directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month to the petitioner No.2 towards his maintenance from the date of this order till he (petitioner No.2) attains the age of majority.”


Aggrieved by the order, the ex-wife and the son filed Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2012 and whereas the husband filed Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar.  The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the interim maintenance allowed to the son is not just and fair and thereby proceeded to enhance the interim maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- p.m., by partly allowing the Criminal Appeal No.91 of 2012 filed by the ex-wife and son; and dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 filed by the husband, by a common order, dated 04.09.2012.  Hence, these two Criminal Revision Cases.   

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the common order impugned in the revision cases.

4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the interim maintenance granted to the son is on high side and therefore, the same is required to be reduced.

5.     The interim maintenance granted to the son is Rs.2,000/- p.m.   In the given facts and circumstances, the said amount cannot be said to be on high side.  Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the common order impugned in these revision cases.

6.     Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed at the admission stage.  However, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.97 of 2011 within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

______________________
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:30th January, 2013.
cs   

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY






















Criminal Revision Case Nos.73 and 140 of 2013



Date:30th January, 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515