IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.554 AND 555 OF 2026 DATE: 21-01-2026 Between:

Smt. K. Sruthi and two others … Petitioners And K.N.V. Rakesh, S/o. Late Ram Mohan, Aged 43 yers, Occ: Business (Proprietor, Fast Track Cars Care)

R/o. Fast Track Cars, Jubilee Hlls, Road No.45, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Both these Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to set aside the docket orders, dated 22.12.2025, passed in M.P.Nos.35 and 36 of 2025 in M.C.No.29 of 2021 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, Secunderabad, whereby, the petitions filed by respondent No.1 to bring on record the additional documents and to mark the same as exhibits, and to recall RW.1 for further marking of documents, were allowed.

2. Heard Sri K. Raghava Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2-State.

3. Petitioner No.1 herein is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein are the children of respondent No.1 herein. The petitioners filed M.C.No.29 of 2021 seeking maintenance. While the said M.C. is pending, the petitions vide M.P.Nos.35 and 36 of 2025 have been filed by respondent No.1-husband seeking to receive and mark the additional documents and to recall RW.1 for further marking of documents. The trial Court vide impugned orders, dated 22.12.2025, allowed the said petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to set aside the said orders.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court ought not to have received the documents put-forth by respondent No.1-husband and that the said documents are not at all relevant for the case on hand. He further submitted that the petitioners were not provided with an opportunity to file counter and that the trial Court has proceeded with the matter hastily and has erroneously received the said documents. He further submitted that if at all the counter of the petitioners was received by the trial Court, it could not have received the documents. Since the petitioners are not provided with an opportunity to file counter, much prejudice is caused to the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the docket orders, dated 22.12.2025, and remit the matter to the trial Court for receiving their counter in M.P.Nos.35 and 36 of 2025 and decide the matter afresh.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that the matter was posted on 22.12.2025 for counter of petitioners and hearing, on which date, the petitioners’ counsel failed to appear and since the case is pending for four years, the trial Court has proceeded with the M.Ps. He further submitted that since there is no stay in the matter, the trial Court has proceeded with receiving the documents through RW.1 and that Exs.R5 to R34 were marked as additional documents. He further submitted that the matter is posted for further cross-examination of RW.1 and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, as they have their right to cross-examine the witness on the said documents. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.

6. A perusal of the order, dated 22.12.2025, passed in M.P.No.36 of 2025 shows that counter is not filed and hence, the Court has treated it as ‘no counter’. A perusal of the record discloses that M.P.No.36 of 2025 was filed on 04.12.2025, vide SR.No.1121 of 2025. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 12.12.2025, and for counter and hearing, it was posted to 22.12.2025. On 22.12.2025, the petitions were allowed observing that “counter is not filed. Hence, treated as no counter”. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that ample opportunity was not given to them to file counter and that on the very next date of hearing, the petitions were allowed.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that pursuant to impugned orders, dated 22.