Telangana HC Enhances Maintenance for Teen to Rs.80L After Divorce of Parents

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a habeas corpus plea challenging a preventive detention order issued by the Cyberabad police commissioner. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar was hearing a petition filed by the wife of the detenue, questioning the legality of the detention. It was the petitioner’s case that the detenue was implicated in five criminal cases involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act (Bootleggers Act), 1986. Counsel contended that although the detention order was passed earlier, it was executed after nearly two years, defeating the very objective of preventive detention, which is to curb imminent threat and prevent further alleged activities. The petitioner argued that the commissioner relied on the detenue’s criminal record to justify the detention, contrary to settled law that past offences alone cannot form the basis for preventive detention unless they demonstrated a live and proximate link to present conduct. Appearing for the state, the assistant public prosecutor sought time to file a response.

2. Group challenges order to change name

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ petition filed by Truth Serum Media Private Limited challenging the Registrar of Companies’ directive to alter its registered name following objections raised by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner sought to annul the impugned order, branding it arbitrary, ultra vires, and an unjustified interference with a duly incorporated commercial identity. The dispute traces back to objections lodged by Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd, which claimed proprietary association with the word “Serum” and alleged that the petitioner’s continued usage of the term may create confusion, dilute brand distinctiveness, and unfairly leverage the pharmaceutical giant’s reputation in the field of vaccines and biological products. Acting on these objections, the registrar invoked its authority to direct a change in nomenclature and ordered rectification of the company’s name in official records. The petitioner disputed the very foundation of this claim, arguing that “Serum” was a generic English word incapable of private monopolisation. It was contended that any presumption of deception or misassociation was speculative, exaggerated, and unsupported by evidence. The petitioner contended that the order of the ROC was non-speaking, procedurally flawed, and reflective of misuse of regulatory discretion.

3. HC hikes maintenance for child

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court enhanced the maintenance provision for a minor daughter from `10 lakh to `80 lakh while upholding a decree of divorce, holding that the child’s long-term welfare, education and future marriage required a realistic and adequate corpus. The panel comprising Justice K. Lakshman and Justice V. Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing a Family Court appeal filed by the wife against a 2018 order of the Family Court, Rangareddy district, which dissolved the marriage and directed a deposit of `10 lakh in the child’s name. The panel noted that the spouses were living separately since 2012, several criminal and maintenance proceedings were exchanged, mediation before the High Court had failed, and there was no real prospect of reunion. While observing that allegations of pre-marital psychiatric illness against the wife were not proved, the panel accepted that the marital relationship was irretrievably broken down and affirmed the decree of divorce.

Taking into account that the daughter was in her early teens, was being brought up by the mother, and would require support for schooling and eventual marriage, as well as the husband’s earning capacity and share in immovable property and the amounts paid towards maintenance, the panel held that the Rs.10 lakh earlier awarded was inadequate. The panel directed the husband to deposit `80 lakh in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the daughter’s name within three months, to be treated as full and final settlement of all claims of the wife and daughter against him, clarifying that no further claims over his properties would lie if this direction is complied with.

3. Woman in fraud case gets pre-arrest bail

The Telangana High Court granted anticipatory bail in a case of alleged financial fraud and cheating. The judge was hearing a criminal petition filed by Thammi Balaji Gupta and his wife Mamatha. The petitioners were seeking protection from arrest relating to allegations of inducing deposits under the guise of chit schemes and gold offers, attracting offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Telangana Depositors Protection Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners collected Rs.11 lakh from the complainant and defrauded several others to the tune of nearly Rs.3 crore.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were themselves subscribers in a chit run by Parapathi Sangamand, were falsely implicated due to internal disputes with its president, who is the complainant. It was argued that petitioner Mamatha was only implicated because she is the wife of the first petitioner and no specific role was attributed to her. The judge observed that there were no changed circumstances from the earlier rejected bail petition and found no material to support the claim that the petitioners were subscribers in the alleged chit fund. Holding that the investigation was at an early stage and that allegations disclosed involvement of multiple victims, the judge declined anticipatory bail to the first petitioner. Noting the absence of specific allegations against second petitioner and her limited role, the judge granted enlarged the second petitioner on anticipatory bail.