Smt.Gowlikar Sarika @ Vageshwari v. Gowlikar Rakesh
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-26. Smt.Gowlikar Sarika @ Vageshwari v. Gowlikar Rakesh. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
[ ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAAAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1339 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 ol lhe constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order daled20-02-2024 Passed in l. A. No. 46 of 2022 in O. P. No. 134 o't2022 onthefileof the court of the I Additional Family Cour{-Cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. Between: Smt. Gowlikar Sarika @ Vageshwari, Wo. Sri Gowlikar Rakesh,Aged about 33 years, Occupation Nil, Presently residing at H. No. 18-6-430, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad, T. S. ... Petitioner/Petitioner AND Gowlikar Rakesh, Sio. G. Yadilal, Aged about 40 years, Occupation Manager on duty ( MOD), O/o. Omni Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ...
RespondenURespondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings in O. P. No. 134 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, I Additional Family Court-Cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B Shanker Counsel for the Respondent : _ _ _ The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE K. SUJANA CTVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1339 OF 2024 ORDER: This revisron petition is hled by the petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20. 02. 2024 passed in I. A. No. 46 of 2022 in O. P. No. 134 of 2022 on the hle of Judge, I-Additional Family Court-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad. 2. I. A. No.
46 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 3O,OOO/- per month and Rs. 50,0OO/- torvards legal expenses till the disposal of O. P. The respondent is the husband of petitioner herein. 3. Heard Sri B. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on his behalf. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the respondent is having an income o[ more thal Rs. 38,OO0/-, the trial Court has granted only Rs. 7OOO/- per month. He further contended that the document filed by the Hence' petitioner before the trial Court is not considered' by allowing this revision' order impugned prayed to set aside the contention of to the submissions made' the 5.
Having regard is is that though document for the petitioner learned counsel showing the income of respondent' the frled by the petitioner trial Court has not considered the same and granted meager amount. However, the record shows that the respondent has that his the assets and iiabilities and filed afhdavit showing incomeisRs. 17,501/-outofwhichhehastopayRs. Sooo/-as of bike and that he has to look after his EMI towards purchase to hled any document The petitioner has not old aged parents. than Rs'38'00O/ -' is earning more show that respondent is having an income of said that respondent Hence, it cannot be an amount rightly granted the trial Court has Rs. 3S,OOO/- and of by -taking the income towards maintenance of Rs. 7O00/ - of further contention learned Rs. 17,5O1/-' The respondent as of date is that there is no specilication counsel for the petitioner intheorderoftrialCourti. e,fromwhichdate,themaintenance year record' O'P'' is frled in the As seen from the has to be paid.
2024 the trial of in February petition is disposed 2022 and,the ' ' be from which date the maintenance has to Court has to specify Rajneesh Vs on the judgment in paid. The petitioner relied Neha and anotherl, wherein in para 1O9 the Supreme Court maintenance has to be specihcally observed that the interim granted from the date of Petition. 6. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as no date was mentioned by the trial Court in the order, the impugned order is modiiied only to the extent of specihcation of date in the order impugned. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to pay the amount as ordered by the trial Court from the date of hling of the petition. The respondent is also directed to pay maintenance on or before 1O6 of every successive month. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shali stand I closed. Sd/- A. V. S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII '!
SECTION OFFICER To, court-cum-XrV Additionar Metroporitan ' Iffr: i? ill:::if;'n"t Sessions 2. One CC to Sri B Shanker, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies ADKDL $ r lpo2l) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324 HIGH COURT l ,) DATED:2611112024 . / c i a ) ( , l] rr Uir, . uil ORDER tg PA CRP. No. 1339 of 2024 ES PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRP GJr4'o s
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.