The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Kale Sangitha, Wo. K. Gopal, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Private Teacher.

2. Kum. Kale Madhumitha, D/o. K. Gopal, Aged about 11 years, Occ. Student, 3. Master Kale Sahith, S/o. Not known (Disputed), aged about I years, Occ Student, Respondents No.1 and 3 being minors, they are represented by their natural Mother i.e. the respondent No.'t herein. All are R/o. Eklara Bigh Village, Madnoor Mandal, Kamareddy District. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

4. Smt. Kale Lingamma, W/o. Kale Abbaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.N. 1-4-10-11, Near Saibaba Temple, Opp. Patanjali Shop, Ganj Road, Bodhan, Nizamabad District )I ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 2 in DVC --! i.t (Respondent No. 4 is a formal party and not necessary Darty to this Crl.R.C) The State of Telanoana Rep. by its public prosecut,:r, High Court for the state of Telangana, it Hyderabad. 5 ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under section 492 0f cr.p.c praying that ,n the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the tligh court may be pleased to suspend the operation of order dated 14-03-2022 in D.V.c. No. 06 0f 2016 on the fire of Judiciar Magistrate of First crass, at Bichkunda which is confirmed by the order dated 1s-o2-2023 in crr. Appear No. 23 of 2022 on the fire of Hon'bre '1st Additionar District Judge, at Kamareddy, p,ending disposar of the main Criminal Revision Case in / the circumstances of th,l case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: Sri palla Kiran Kumar (Legal Aid) Counsel for the Respondent No. S: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.343 OF 2o23 ORDER: This criminal revision case is Iiled by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2O23 in Cr1.A.No.23 of 2022 on the file of I Additionai District Judge at Kamareddy and the consequent order dated 14.O3.2022 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bichkunda

2. Heard Sri M. Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Palla Kiran Kumar, legal aid counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.5.

3. The contention of learned counsei for the petitioner herein is that the appellate Court has not heard the petitioner herein and without hearing him the appeal was disposed of. He further contended that the petitioner herein is a Government teacher and earning Rs.60,0O0/- per month, that he has to take care of his old aged mother who is aged about 80 years and spending Rs.30,0O0/- per month for her medical expenses and in maintenance case also petitioner herein u'as directed to pay Rs. 10OOO/- per month to 2 !I-.\:*-'1 respondent No.l and Rs.300O/- per month each to rt:spondents 2 and 3 whereas in DVC the trial Court granted lts.4000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.200O/- per month each to rt:spondents 2 and 3. As such, prayed to set aside the impul3ned order by aiiowing this revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the resltondent Nos. 1 to 3 would submit that there is no force in the rcris;ion or in the appeal of the petltioner. The petitioner has not paid the amount grantpd in DVC and in maintenance case till .-oday. The respondent No.1 studied only intermediate and she rs working in a private school and earning very meager amount for thr:ir livelihood. Respondent No.2 is studying intermediate and resp,rndent No.3 is studying in Xth class afld the amount granted by th: trial Court is not at all sufhcient for their maintenance. As such rr:quested this Court to dismiss this revision case.

5. Consideiing the submissions made by the respe ctive counsel and the material on record, the amount awarded b1' tl-re trial Court is Rs.800O/- per month, i.e., Rs.4OOO/ to respon,lont No. 1 and Rs.2000/- per month each to respondents 2 anc. 3. However according to the petitioner his take home salary is m,:re than Rs.6O,O0O/ - per month. Considering the same , there is no illegality in the order of trial Court as well as the appellate court. \* t' i{ t 3 Therc arc no merits in this revision as such, the same is liable to be dismissed

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the pctitioner is dirccted to deposit the total arrears of amount on or before O1.12.2025 and also to pay the maintenance amount on or before 5e of everv month. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, SO/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy 2. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at BiChkunda. (With records, if any) 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri Kiran Reddy Mallarapu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Palla Kiran Kuma(Legal Aid), Advocate [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies VH/psl HIGH COURT DATED: 0910912025 ORDER CRLRC.No.343 of 2023 e ) c u ,i l't' (t ,(.. 21 }lol, 2ut t lrpSrr4 f rrt-! e \+c * DISMISSING THE CRLRC v .t