PENMETSA LAVANYA v. PENMETSA RAVI VARMA

PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.942 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), seeking a direction to the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, to dispose of the maintenance case in M.C.No.04 of 2017, as early as possible.

#2. The petitioners are the wife and son of respondent No.1, who has been working as Managing Director of M/s. Square Feet Online Reality Services Private Limited.

#3. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent No.1 has been running the business and earning lakhs of rupees, yet at the least, has not bothered about paying maintenance to his wife and son. The learned Trial Court in M.C.No.04 of 2017 was pleased to grant an amount of Rs.10,000/- each towards interim maintenance to the petitioners. However, several applications, numbering five, i.e., Crl.M.P.No.1419 of 2022, Crl.M.P.No.1099 of 2023, Crl.M.P.No.62 of 2024, Crl.M.P.No.1138 of 2025, and Crl.M.P.No.unnumbered petition/2026, have been filed before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has not been inclined to dispose of them early. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.942 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026

#4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

#5. As seen from the record, the petitioners seek expeditious disposal of M.C.No.04 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, wherein at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: “(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.”

#6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2 at paragraph No.32 held as under: “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.”

#7. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.942 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

#8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, is directed to dispose of M.C.No.04 of 2017 along with the extant petitions as expeditiously as possible, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial).

#9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 09.02.2026 RSI _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.942 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026 58 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 942 of 2026 Date: 09.02.2026 RSI