ORDER:

Hearc the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel ap ,earing for the 2',r respondent ancl tlte learned public Prosecutor

2. lhis Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 15-t 2-2017 in crl.M.p.No.433 0f 2017 in M.C.No.39 0f 2013 passt d by the Judge Pamily Court at Khammam District. The petitio rer herein is husband and the 2"a respondent is wife. The 2"a res pondent has frted a petition under Section 125 Cr.p.C vide M.C.N:.39 of 2013 seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein. I: L the said M.C., the petitioner herein has Iiled an applicatior under Section 294 ol Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.p.No.433 of 2Ol7 seek ng to receive certain documents and mark them as exhibits i.t ., "1. Moblle Phone. 2, Posltiue photographs (S) oJ the pet tloner ln M.C,, obtained from Jace book account of the petiti tner, 3, Memorandum of Understand.ing between the petlti tner and the respondent. 4, Mutual diuorce filed under Se:tlon 13(B) at Vijagauadd Familg Court betueen petitlonet and. respond.ent," The petitioner herein sought to file the sa d documents on the ground that there is conversation of the 2"d espondent in the said mobile phone which is useful for the purpo;e of deciding the present case. The photographs and the Memr randum of Understanding and copy of the mutua.l divorce aJ plication are also relevance for the purpose of deciding the preser t application. The said petition was resisted by the !"a

I

I respondent stating that in an application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, receiving and marking of mobile phone, photographs, l is not required and the Court below has to consider the paying capacity of the petitioner and the 2"d respondent.

3. Learned Family Court Cum - VI Additional District Judge, Khammam vide impugned order dated 27.1O.2017 partly dismissed the said application on the ground that petitioner herein failed to explain the reasons for not filing the sa:d memory card and other documents along with the counter. The petitioner herein has also filed the said application after a lapse of four years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the very apptcation fiIed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and the Court below erred in partly allowing the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Iearned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that M.C., is posted for judgment.

6. As stated above, the 2nd respondent had filed the said application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in the year 2013 whereas the petitioner herein had filed the above said Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2Ol7 seeking to receive certain documents for the purpose of marking and to mark the same as exhibits on behalf of the petitioner, in the year 2017. As perusal of the petition filed under Section 294 of Cr.P.C, petitioner has not explained reasons much less satisfactory reasons for not filing of the said documents in time along with counter alrd he has not specificall_\ mentioned any reasons ancl the relevanc-\, of the said documents in the sa.rd petition. It is an application filed under Section 12 i of Cr.p.C and it is of the year, 2013. According to this Court receiving of mobile phone and photographs is not required ir an application under Section 125 Cr.p.C. The Court has to con ;ider the paying capaciry of the parties. Except that, ot-her aspe,:ts cannot be gone into. Therefore, according to this Court, the Court below rightly partly dismissed the application filed by th( petitioner vide impugned order by receiving mutua.l divorce pet tion and Memorandum of Understanding, r,r.hich is a reasoned o der and well founded.

7. retitioner failed to make out a case to interfi:re with the finding of the court berou,. Therefore, rhis crimjnal petition is liable to re dismissed arrd accorclingl,r, dismissed.

Misce laneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

"'

S D /- B. SATYAVAT[H-I-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/

//TRUE COPY// (\-

SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The J