THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7073 OF 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the order dated 03.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2025 in M.C.No.15 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

2. I have heard Mr. Hari Kishan Kudikala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No. 15 of 2019, which was adjudicated on 02.03.2021. In that proceeding, the Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to respondent No.2 (petitioner No.1 in the maintenance case) and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.3 (petitioner No.2), totalling Rs.12,000/-. The maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of the petition, with the payments to be made directly to the account of respondent No.2 by the 5th of every succeeding month.

Additionally, the Court ordered that arrears of maintenance be cleared within three months from the date of the order.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the maintenance order dated 02.03.2021 in M.C. No. 15 of 2019. Upon considering the submissions of the parties, the Court allowed the application, subject to the condition that the petitioner must deposit 40% of the outstanding maintenance arrears on or before 06.06.2025. The Court further directed the petitioner to file a counter in the main M.C. proceeding, clarifying that failure to comply with this condition would render the order ineffective.

5. Aggrieved by the direction requiring the deposit of 40% of the arrears, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, contesting the legality and propriety of such a conditional order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the direction to deposit 40% of the maintenance arrears is unduly burdensome and oppressive. It was further submitted that the trial Court failed to adequately consider the petitioner’s plea that he had been making regular payments to the respondents towards maintenance. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner had provided his credit card to respondent No.2 specifically for the purpose of meeting her maintenance needs.

7. In light of these circumstances, counsel submitted that the trial Court ought to have set aside the impugned maintenance order in its entirety and directed a fresh adjudication of the main M.C., without imposing any condition for the deposit of arrears.

8. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions.

9. The Maintenance Case originates from the year 2019, with the maintenance order having been passed in March 2021. The petitioner contends that the said order was passed ex parte.

10. Upon consideration of the merits of the present petition, it is the petitioner's prayer that the maintenance order be set aside and the matter be revived for fresh adjudication. Significantly, the present petition seeking to set aside the maintenance order has been filed only in the year 2025, after a substantial lapse of time.

11. Pertinently, the petitioner asserts that he had made certain payments to the respondents towards both current maintenance and arrears. However, he remained inactive and took no steps to challenge the order from the date it was passed until the filing of the present petition. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the respondents have initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the unpaid maintenance arrears, and the said execution petition is pending. The petitioner has submitted that he is contesting the said proceedings by filing an appropriate counter, asserting that payments were indeed made. This factual matrix reinforces the inference that t