The High Court · 2025

Lingampally Srinivas, S/o Lingampally Rajaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: AR Head Constable, R/o Tangadadlapelli Police Head Quarters, Rajanna Sircila Dist. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Pros€cutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad. 2 Lingampally Jayalatha, W/o. Lingampally Srinivas, aged 47 yea:,.s, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 8-1-9411, Near ZP High Scfiool Katta Rampur, Locality. Karimnagar Dist. ...Respondents/Petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 430(1) of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay operation of the JudgmenUorder dl. 14.8.2024 in F.C.M.C.No.17 of 2021 by the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court-cum-lV Additional District and Sessions Judge. at Karimnagar. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Higth Court may be pleased to extend 6 more months time to pay the arrears of maintenance the order dated O2lO1l2O25 in lA No.1 /2025 in Crl.RC. No. 1 288 of 2025. ,I lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the order dated O2lO1l2O25 in l.A.No.1/2025 in Cd.RC. No.'128812025 in so far as the arrears of maintenance is concerned. lA NO: 3 OF 202t Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, Rule 17 of CPC, R/w Section 151 of CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the additionat material papers ie., Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities dated 01/08/2024 filed by the Petitioner/Respondent No.2 and Ecourts Online daily Status dated 3110712024, 0110812024, 05t0812O24,0710812024, 1210812024 and 14lOBl2O24 (6 in No) in the Criminal Revision Case No.1288 of 2024, pending on the file of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana. I i i i I i Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Y SHASHIDHAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER r'1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI"AITGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE t{o.1288 ol2024 8th DAY OF DECEMBER 2()25 Between: Lingampally Srinivas. AND The State <{ Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, And another. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER This crirnin:rl rcvision case is liled by the petitioner aggrieved by the or<ler dated I4.O8.2O21 passed in F.C.M.C.No 17 of '2O'21 on the file of Family Court cum IV Additional District :r ncl Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar, wherein, an amount of Rs.2 I ,l1o.25 I - per mont}, was awarded as maintenance to the pctitioner therein, from the date of said order. -2-

2. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Court passed the impugned order without appreciating the fact that the petitioner is unable to file the assets and liabilities a-ffidavit before the trial Corrrt and without receiving the same the trial Court passed the impugned ordcr directing the petitioner herein to deposit maintenance. While placing reliance upon tlle judgment rendered in the case of Rajneesh v. ![ehal, and asserting that the respondent No.2 is presently residing in the house of petitioner herein and is receiving rents as well. Therefore, he requested this Court to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel lor respondent No.2, opposed the submissions macle bv learned counsel for petitioner and contended that even zrftcr giving sufficient opportunity to petitioner herein for tiling of assets and liability statement, the same was not hled, and that cannot bc a ground to remand the matter. While advocating that thc petitioner herein is having sufhcient means to cleposit the maintenance amount, he prayed this Court to dismiss this revision case. I ArR 2o2r SUPREME couRT 569 / / 3

5. Having regard to rival subrnissions made, and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it Iit to remand ttre matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication as the assets and liabilities statement is not filed, and having regard to the judgment rendered in the case of RaJneesh Vs Neha. Therefore, the order dated 14 .Oa.2021 passed in F.C.M.C.No.17 of 2O2l on the file of Family Court cum IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar, is set aside and remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month, from the date of hling of petition, till its disposal. Further, the trial Court is directecl to dispose of the matter at the earliest.

6. With the above modifit:ation. the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, iI an1', pending shall stand closed. Sd/- V.KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To 'l . The Judge, Family Court-cum-lV Additional District an Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

2. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hiqh Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri S Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Y Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies ARK /PR -f"XA . HIGH COURT DATED: 0A11212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.'1288 of 2024 ( * t{HE SIA 2 B JA}I 2O2E ,r) ,f l-'l+r .: . DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE @ erIrr-t'{ 5<2,