B.Sudhakar v. P.Dhana Lakshmi
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G RADHA RANI
Outcome
Disposed of
With the said directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Both the leamed counsel stated that when the trial court referred the judgment of the H.on, ble Apex court in Rajnesh v. Nehat and held that both the parties have not filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities, it ought to have givcn…
- Para 55. With the said directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 08-11-2021 passed in lANo846 of 2018 in F.C.O.P.No.11 93 oI 2017 on the file of Honble Addl. Family court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hastinapuram and allow the revision petition, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M. Sharath Shantha Reddy, representing
Sri D. Ramakrishna Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Kunal Kakkad, counsel representing Sri B. Mohan The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVII, REVISION PETITION No.95 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Fi.evision Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dared 08.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.846 of 2018 in F.c.o.I'.No.ll93 of 2017(whichwasreportedtobepresentlytransferredtoFamilyCourt' Malkajgiri and was renumbered as F.C-O.P'No'1450 of 2022) by the leamed Additional Famity Court Judge, Rangareddy District at Hastinapuram'
2.,HeardSriM.SharathShanthaReddy, leamedcounselrepresenting Sri D.Ramakrishna, leamed counsel for the petitioner on record and Sri Kunal Kakkad, leamed counsel representing Sri B.Mohan, leamed counsel for the a' respondent on record.
Both the leamed counsel stated that when the trial court referred the judgment of the H.on, ble Apex court in Rajnesh v. Nehat and held that both the parties have not filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities, it ought to have givcn a direction to the parties to file their respective affidavits. Learned counsel firr the respondent submitted that the parties have already filed their affrdavits in I.A.No.846 of 2018 by the time of passing the judgment by 7 I ' 2020 (6) ALT 2 t 5 SC 2 Dr.GR& J erp_95]O22 the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2019, as such both the parties had not filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities
Considering the submissions of both the leamed counsel, as the interim maintenance order was passed by the trial court without following the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (cited supra), directing them to file their affidavits pertaining to their assets and liabilities, it is considered fit to remand the matter to the trial court and direct both the parties to file their affidavits with regard to their assets and liabilities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the trial court has to decide the interim maintenance application within two (02) weeks from the date of filing of the aflidavits by both the parties.
Operative part
With the said directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,
The Additional Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Hastinapu ram.
One CC to Sri D. Ramakrishna, Advocate{OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri B. Mohan, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies /. ( HIGH COURT DATED:0410312025 ORDER CRP.No.95 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 7 4.,,9 J 4 yE STArq 1 $5 l{rfl zffi ( q la) l,) v o .L * t t h i
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the said directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
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.