Criminal Petition No. 5314 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 125, 482
Judgment
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 25-11-2009 passed in Crl.R.P.No.72 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. The marriage between the petitioner herein and the 1st respondent herein had taken place on 25.02.2004 at
T.T.D., Choultry, Srikalahasti, as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a female child i.e., 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the disputes arose between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 filed M.C.No.12 of 2005 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- each in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.72 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, wherein the learned Sessions by order dated
Operative part
25.11.2009 allowed the revision in part reducing the monthly maintenance from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1,500/- each. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Petition is filed. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent got appointment as a secondary grade teacher and that she is able to maintain herself. Therefore, he seeks to quash the order insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to carry out the orders passed under the Code. The petitioner failed to satisfy that his case falls under any of the three categories to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, there are no grounds to quash the order and hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all his contentions before the court below insofar as the 1st respondent concerned. 25th April, 2012 Prv ____________________ JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 125, 482.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.