Muddasu Pradeep v. The State of Telangana,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-07. Muddasu Pradeep v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2432OF 2026 Between: Muddasu Pradeep, S/o Muddasu Bala Aged 34 years, Occ. Software Engineer. , Working at Copart lndia Centre, Hl-Tech City, 4th Floor, Raheja Mindspace, Madhapur, Hyderabad. And also Software Engineer working in Blue Youdar Pvt Ltd. , At parcel 4, Octava Block, Salarpuria Saftava , Knowledge City, 14th Floor, Unit 3, Madhapur, Hyderabad, T. 5-500031. R/o H. No. 4-221, Road No. 3, RTC Colony, Near Hanuman Temple, Changicherla, K. V Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad 2. Muddasu Amyra Celestina, D/o. Muddasu Pradeep Date of Bitlh. Odl1zlz02z Aged about 17 Months, R/o H. No. 7-1-3041N912, Dasarambasti, B. K. Guda, WC. Ameerpet, Po Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Ameerpet Hyderabad T.
s -50038 Rep by Her Real mother Boddu Swapna Wo. Muddasu Pradeep, Aged About 33 Years, Occ. Pvt Services as a Team Leader At Wipro Company Gacchibowli Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash/set aside the impugned docket order dated:28. 01. 2026 passed by the Principal Judge family Court-Cum- Xlll AMSJ Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad in MC No. 199 of2024. l. A. NO: 'l OF 2026 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in MC No. 199 of 2024, on the file of Hon'ble Principal Judge familv court -cum- x* AMSJ, Karpataru comprex, Hyderabad, pending disposal of C:riminal petition l. A.
NO:2 ot= 2026 Petition under section 52g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the docket order dated. 29. 01. 2026, passed principar by-the Judge famiry Court -Cum- Xltt AMSJ, Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad in MC No. 199 ot 2024, pending dispc,sal of Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri K. Rajashekar, Advocate for the petitioner, sri Jithender Rao Veerarqara, Additionar pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 . The Court ma e the following: ORDER HIGH COURT F]OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2432 of 2O26 DATE: 07. 04. 2o126 Between: Muddasu Pradeep Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad and another ....
Respondents :ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been liled by the petitioner/respondent, aggrieved by the docket order dated 28. 0I. 2026 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Kalpataru Complex, Hyderabad (for short, the trial Court') in M. C. No. 199 of 2024, whereby the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,O0O/- per month to respondent No. 2 as interim maintenance till disposal of Crl. M. P. No. 88 of 2025 on Sth of every month. 2. Heard Mr. K. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 3. [,earned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the order da'-ed 23. O2.. 2026, he sent personal notice to respondent No. 2 as well as to her counsel appearing before the trial Court through speed post. The notice sent to respondent No.
2 was returned with a postal endorserrent trnclaimed'dated 03. 03. 2026, which amounts to deemed service €. s per Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; and the notice ssnt to the counsel for respondent No. 2 was delivered on 27. 02. 2026. 3. 1. He, further submitted that respondent No. 2, represented by her mother, tiled M. C. No. 199 of 2024 seeking maintenance of Rs. SQ,OOO/-per month. Along with the said M. C. , she filed Cr1. M. P. No. 88 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance at Rs. 50,0OO /- per month and in the said applicaticn, the trial Court, on 28. 01 . 2026, posted the matter to 13. O3. 2C26 for filing counter. However, on the very same day, the trial pay Court, ,n M. C. No. 199 of directed the petitioner to . 2024, Rs. 15,O00/- per month as interim maintenance till disposal of Crl. M. P. lrlo. 88 of 2025, without assigning any reasons. 3. 2. Hr: also submitted that when the interim application filed by respondr:nt No.
2 rvas posted for filing counter, directing the petitioner to pay intet'im maintenance in the main M. C. is contrary to law. Hence, the impu gned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 4. Hzrving considered the submissions made by the learned counsel 1 for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, i i i i ) it reveals that respondent No. 2, represented by her mother, filed M. C. No. 199 of 2024 invoking the provisions of Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance of Rs. SO,OOO per month. Along with the /- said M. C. , respondent No. 2 filed Crl. M. P. No. 88 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5O,OO0/- per mo-nth. 5. The record further reveals that the trial Court, on 28. 01. 2026, posted Crl. M. P. No. 88 of 2025 for counter and hearing to 13. 03. 2025, and on the very same day, in the main M. C. , passed a docket order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 till disposal of Crl.
M. P. No. 88 of 2025, without assigning any reasons and passed a cryptic order. 6. It is very much relevant to extract the docket order dated 28. 01 . 2025 passed by the trial Court: i ; i i i "Both parties present. Counter not hled. Meanwhile respondent i I i is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner as I I interim maintenance till disposal of the Crl. MP on 05th of every I I month. For counter and affidavit of disclosure of assets and i ! liabilities of respondent. Call on 13. 03. 2026. " I I Thus, the above order clearly reveals that the trial Court, without I \ assigning any reasons, directed the petitioner to pay interim \ ;: l: \ maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month, when the interim maintenance application was pending consideration. 7. tt is very much relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihart, held as under: "19t.
Before we part with the case, we feel it necessary to indicate the-t non-reasoned conclusions by appellate Courts are not ap1>ropriate, more so, when views of the lower Court are differed flroln. In case of concurrence, the need to again repeat reasons may not be there. It is not so in case of reversal. Reason is the heeLrtbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes life,ess. " 8. In view of the above, this Court, without going into other aspects of the casie, holds that the impugned order dated 28. O I . 2026 passed in M. C. No. 119 of 2024 is liable to be aside, and accordingly the same is set aside. I I ! 9. Acc'ordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. The trial Court is ! directed to dispose of interim maintenance application, namely, I t; Crl. M. P. No. 88 of 2025, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as I 1 possible, preferably within a period of one (1) month from the date of il receipt of a copy of this order.
i I I I Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ G SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Judge Family Court-Cum-Xllt Additional Metropolitan Sessions i Judge, l(alpataru Complex, Hyderabad I t 2. The Xlll Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate i at Nampally i 3. The Station House officer, women Police station, west i zone, Hyderabad 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI 5. One CC to Sri K. Rajashekar, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies VH/PSL ^1 CC one. { HIGH COURT DATED: 0110412026 vr-e" oY ORDER {s * CRLP. No. 2432 ot 202G u o =\\ lJ- \ (\ + !! l ALLOWING THE CRIMINAI. PETITION W"') d$ to'' fu
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.