THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.606 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 08.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice seeking condonation of delay of 795 days in filing a Criminal Revision against the ex parte order dated 15.06.2017 passed in M.C. No.14 of 2016, wherein the trial Court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein. The petitioner earlier filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in Crl.M.P.No.1457 of 2018 to condone delay of 444 days, which was dismissed on 13.01.2020. The respondent opposed the present petition, contending that the petitioner intentionally avoided contesting the case and failed to offer sufficient cause for such prolonged delay. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the record, vide order dated

08.12.2021 allowed the petitioner holding that the petitioner was aware of the ex parte order and had already paid Rs.1,08,000/- towards maintenance, but delayed filing the revision. However, taking a lenient view, the trial Court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall pay half of the arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.1,44,000/- within one month, failing which the petition would stand cancelled.

3. Heard Smt. V. Preeti Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the financial and personal circumstances of the petitioner while directing payment of arrears of Rs.1,44,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioner was unemployed and had no source of income, and during the pandemic period he was not in a position to pay such a huge amount. He contended that the father of the petitioner was hospitalized and later passed away, causing heavy medical expenses, and that the petitioner himself suffered from jaundice and underwent treatment at NIMS and later through Ayurvedic methods and that the respondent was employed as a teacher drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and was receiving single women pension, facts which were suppressed before the Court. He further contended that the respondent, being educated and financially independent, acted with mala fide intent by filing false complaints and affidavits to harass and extract money from the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and there are no merits in the criminal revision case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the main contention raised by the petitioner was that though the trial Court allowed the petition for condonation of delay, it imposed a condition directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-, which was excessive and beyond his financial capacity. It was further contended that the order under challenge was an ex parte order and the delay in filing the petition to set aside the same was not deliberate. The petitioner submitted that he had already deposited Rs.1,40,000/- towards maintenance and was unable to deposit any further amount.

7. On the other hand, It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for respondent No