THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.80 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 27.07.2023 passed in M.C.No.53 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur, Vikarabad District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and respondent No.3, his minor son, seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000 each from the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 alleged that after marriage, they were subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty, which eventually forced them to separate and live with the parents of respondent No.2. Despite repeated efforts and police intervention, including the registration of a criminal case under Section 498A IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the respondent failed to maintain respondent Nos.2 and 3 from January 2020 onward. The petitioner remained absent despite service of notice and was set ex parte. During the inquiry, respondent No.2 adduced evidence including her chief affidavit and documentary proof of marriage and educational expenses of the child. The court, upon perusal of the evidence, found that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had justifiable grounds to live separately, lacked independent means of livelihood, and were entirely dependent on the petitioner who had sufficient income from agriculture and real estate. The trial Court held that both respondent Nos.2 and 3 were entitled to maintenance of Rs.8,000/- each per month from the date of the petition, along with costs, and accordingly allowed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

3. Heard Sri K.E. Hari Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State; and Sri Jacob Mudi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to set aside the ex parte decreetal order dated 27.07.2023. However, the said petition was returned by the trial Court on the ground that the provision invoked was not applicable, and that an appropriate remedy is available under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the petitioner to directly approach the trial Court.

5. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is granted liberty to file an appropriate petition under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the petition on merits, as expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with law.

6. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 23.06.2025 SAI THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.80 of 2025 Date: 23.06.2025 SAI