S.No./
W.P.No. |
Petitioner & Respondents |
Relief sought / Relief granted |
Filing/ Disposal/
Follow -up |
1.
M.c.no.6 of 1988
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
Relief Granted : The first petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of the respondent. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent was habiting with her the promise that he would marry her and as a result of such union,the second petitioner was born.The respondent denied the allegation made against him by the first petitioner.
The petitioner u/s 488 Cr.P.C is dismissed as the componants as mentioned in section 488 Cr.P.C are not found in this case - Sub divisional megistrate , Rampachodavaram.
Dt - 31st july 1989
|
Order
|
2.
Criminal revision petition no.97/89
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju |
|
Order
|
3.
Cr.R.P.No.
182/90
Cr.R.C.No.183/90
A.R.R. |
1.Vempa Gangamma
2.Nageswara rao
Vs
State & Redlam Satyanarayana
|
Relief Sought : To grant mainenance
Relief Granted: after weighting all the evidence do herebyorder that the respondent redium satyanarayana has to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.300/- per month to P.W.1 and Rs.200/- per month to p.w.2 from the date of Judgement. - sub divisional court 20th Nov 1987.
Order : "setting aside the order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate.
Date : 03-Oct-1988.
Addl sessions Judge,Rajahmandry.
Highcourt Order : The appellate court found that there is the marriage btw the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent and disallowed her claim.So far as the paternity of the child is concerned,the lower appallate court ought to have remanded the matter to the original court to give an opportunity to both the parties. As illegetimate son,petitioner no.2 is entitled for maintenance.In the case of illicit intimacy,certain oral avidence has to be required,particular, as this incident is said to have taken place in a tribal area where we cannot expect documentary evidance. Therefore,the lower appellate court's finding with regard to petitioner no.2 is concerned has been set aside and the matter is remanded to the original court for disposing of the claim of petitioner no.2 after considering for disposing of the claim of petitioner no.2 after considering the avidence already on record and the evidence that is being produced by both the parties,so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned,no case is made out for interference.
Date : 14th August 1991. |
Direction on 14-08-1991
remanded to SDC court R.Chodavaram
Both parties compromised in the court |
4.
CRL.M.P.No.549 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
Interim Directions : Pakalapati suryanarayana Raju alongwith the petitioners in Crl.P.No.549/93 shall present themselves before the authorities,C.C.M.B. tomorrow,i.e 9-7-1993 and sri A.Ramalingeswararao,learned counsel for petitioners shall accompany them and pay the neccessory fees payable for tests. If the C.C.M.S. authorities direct them to come on any other day,the parties should go there on the date fixed.
The 8th July 1993
CCMB : "I regret that DNA fingerprinting services from the CCMB are not avoilable."
Director
Prof D Balasubramanian
July 13,1993
Order : There must be corroboration to the intimate relationship. In view of the absence of corroborative evidence, the finding of the courts below that the petitioners failed to establish the paternity of the second petitioner cannot be interfared with.
|
Order
News |
5.
CRL.P.NO.549 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
6.
CRL.P.NO.549 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
7.
Crl.M.P.No. 676 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
8.
Criminal misc.petition no.1782 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
9.
Center for cellular and molecular biology,13-07-1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
10.
Criminal petition no.549 of 1993
|
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
|
Order
|
11.
Crl.p No.549/93
A.R.R. |
P.Lakshmi
Vs
Pakalapati suryanarayana raju
|
Relief Sought : To call for the records...
Relief Granted: "CCMB declined to take up DNA test. The case was dismissed" |
Disposed On : 20-Nov-1995
|
12.
M.C.No.8/94
|
Patara buramma
vs
Eedala paddaraju
|
Relief Granted: maintenance granted - sub divisional megistrate-rampachodavaram, Date 7th Apr 1994 |
Disposed
|
13.
M.C.no.11/95
|
Patara buramma
vs
Eedala paddaraju
|
Relief Granted: Dismissed - second additional JFC megistrate, Rajahmaundry. |
Disposed
|
14.
Crl.Mp.no.2253/97
|
Patara buramma
vs
Eedala paddaraju
|
Relief Sought: that this hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondent to appear for the D.N.A test before the central for cellular and molecular biology,Hyderabad to establish that he is the father of minor children ramayamma and lakshmi,pending disposal of the revision petition in the interest of justice.
Date:March 1987.
Relief Granted : The marriage of the petitioner with RW-1 is pleased,but not proved.There is no evidence to show that the children were born through the respondent.The learned council for the petitioner submits that the girls studied up to seventh class.In such a case, there should not have been any difficulty for the petitioner to produce school certificate to prove that the children were born through the respondent who is the father and that affort is not made.Therefore, the lower court rightly disallowed the maintenance case.There are no grounds to interfere.Hence,the criminal revision case is dismissed.
Date: The 9th April of 1999
----- The High Court of A.P. |
Disposed
|
