Judgment · High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Mar 2010
- Bench
- P SWAROOP REDDY
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 397, 401
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Recording the said submission, both the revision petitions are allowed without notice to respondent to avoid inconvenience to her to appear before this Court. Petitioner has to satisfy the court below with regard to the payment of arrears and in case, his claim for…
Judgment
As the subject matter and parties to these two criminal revision cases are one and the same, they are heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
These two Criminal Revision cases under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are filed by the petitioner–respondent aggrieved by the orders in Crl.M.P.Nos.1189 of 2009 and 422 of 2008 respectively in M.C.No.226 of 2006 dated 17.02.2010 on the file of the Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of JHCBBC cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions reports that the amounts are being deposited regularly and initially there was some delay in depositing the amounts.
Recording the said submission, both the revision petitions are allowed without notice to respondent to avoid inconvenience to her to appear before this Court. Petitioner has to satisfy the court below with regard to the payment of arrears and in case, his claim for depositing of amounts as directed by this Court is incorrect, the trial Court shall issue fresh order for imprisonment for appropriate period. 2nd March 2010 Rns ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 397, 401.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 Mar 2010. The bench was P SWAROOP REDDY.
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.