MOHD SHAKER Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order dated 05/01/2018 passed in Crl.MP.No. 2144 of 2016 in M.C.No. 349 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner is no other than the father of the second respondent herein.

(3.) She filed Crl.MP.No. 2144 of 2016 in the earlier disposed of order in M.C.No. 349 of 2012 before Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IXAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, under section 127 Cr.P.C., to enhance the existing maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.7,500/- per month saying her father, who is the petitioner herein and respondent before the lower court in that application is doing business including screen printing and real estate and getting more than Rs.70,000/- per month and the costs of living is increased from the economic index about 300 times and pursuant to the earlier application for enhancement of maintenance by order dated 12-06-2013 from that day it was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month which is very meagre. The petitioner herein, who was respondent before the trial court even served but failed to attend much less to oppose the petition and the large Judge, Family Court based on the said petition in Crl.MP.No. 2144 of 2016 [daughter of him] as PW-1 in-chief with no cross-examination and from her say with re-petition of those facts of her enhancement application saying those facts not in challenge including his owning immovable properties with shops bearing door Nos. 22-2-801 to 22-02-810 and thereby just cross-claimed to enhance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.7,500/- per month. It is said order dated 05/1/2018 impugnment herein. The second respondent notice sent to her address furnished in the lower court returned as "un-claimed" for seven deposit is sufficient and even notice served to her counsel in the lower court and even shows delivery, there is no representation. Thereby service from the above held sufficient and taken as heard second respondent and heard the counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/State.