Heard Sri v. Vishwanatham

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may- -be piear"a stay all further proceedings in Crl.MP No.318/2024 in DYC No.12212022. 'dl 10-07 -2624 on the fiie of the ll t\4etropolitan magistrate, Rangareddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SMT SUNITHA AKULA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER ,. - .:! r::!+r+-Jr-.;r! THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 151 of 2O2S ORDER: This C:iminal Rcvision Case is flled cl allenging tl-rc order daterl 18.12.2024 passed in Crt.M.p.No.Sl I of 2O24 in Cr1.A.SR.No. 1O9O of 2024 by the learned prinr.ipal Sessions Judgc, Ranga Iteddy District at I-.B. Nagar.

2. The lrrir:l facts of the case are that the 1>critioner filed a petition se<,king condonation of a delay of 66 dar s ir-r filing tlrc appeal, statinq that the delay occurred due to tht. ill health ol thc petitionel'. It was also submitted that tlre datc for pronouncernent of the orcler was hxed as 10.(),,.20221, ar-rd they waite<l until the evening for the order, brrt it ri,as not pronouncecl. Hence, the delay was unintentional, and the petitioner reqlrested the Court to condone the sa rne. Howevcr, the trial (lourt, after hearing both sides, cl s missed t]-re petition, hold ing that the order was, in fact, passed on 1O.O7.2024 and is available on record. Therefon,, it found no merit in 1fug pr:tition and dismissed it. Aggrievecl rl-rereby, the present criminal revision case is filed. 2 sKs,J Crl.R.C.No.l5l of 2O25 3- Heard Sri V. Vishwanatham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Smt. Sunitl-ra Akuia, learned counsel appearing on behaLf of rcspondent No.1 - State and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deiay of 66 days in filing the appeal was neither rvillful nor deliberate but occurred due to lhc petitioner's il1 health and the genuine belief of the counsel that the detailcd order had not been pronounced on lO.O7 .2024, as it was only made available on 3O.O9.2O24. He further contended that the learned Appellate Judge erred in dismissing the condone delay petition without assigning proper reasons and failed lo consider that the delay was supported by justifiable grounds. He further submitted that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-husband is contrary to Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is intended to protect the rights of the aggrieved woman. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal reuslon case. 3 SKS,J Crl.R.C No.15I of 2025

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for rel;p,ondent No.1 subrr-ritted that the petitioner has hled the a:rpea1 v,ithout complying rvith the orders passed by the tria I Court. He further submitted that after filing the DVC and:rnother case, the respondc;-r l-father was not allowed to meel his children. He contendecl that there are no valid ground-" ro allou, the present petition and no sufficient reasons have been shown for lhe delav. Therefore, he prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a thorough perusal o[ [he material available or-r record, it is observed that the pet: tioner hled a petition befbrc the trial Court seeking condonation of a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The trial Court <lismissed the said petition on the ground that no sufficien t cause was shovvn for the delay and further observed thrlt there was misrepresentation regarding the pronouncement rtf the order dated 1O.07.2024, specilicatly, that although the docket mentions the order was passed on that date, the petitioner claimed it u,as not pronounced. The petitioner also contended that she was suffering from health issues, whir;tL led to the 4 sKs,., Crl.R.C.No.151 of 2O25 delay. Furthermore, one of the grounds urged is that the impugned order granting interim custody of the children to the respondent is contrary to Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides that temporary custody of the child may be granled to the aggrieved person or a person applying on her behalf, and not to the respondent.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration the principle that matters should bc decided on merits rather than on technicalities, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 66 days in hling the appeal is neither excessive nor deliberate, and deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. However, in the meantime, and in compliance with the spirit of the order passed by [he Trial Court, the petitioner is directed to facilitate the respondent's interaction with the children through video conferencing until the disposal of the appeal.

8. In view thereof, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 78.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.53 I of 2024 in Crl'A.SR.No.1O9O of 2O24 by tlne . : - '* e*.. ,rl To, 5 sKs,J Crl.R.C.No.151of 2025 learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Redd.,r District at L.B. Nagar. Misceilitneous petitions, pending, if anr, shall stand closed SD/- A.PRATHIMA DE:PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER l The ll lt/etropolitan l\Iagistrate Rangareddy Disttitt. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Slate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Vanam Vishwanatham, Advocate [OPUC:] 4. One CC to Sri Sunitha Akula, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSI- HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 \ ORDER CRLRC.No.151 o12025 r,h, rIk. '!) t $6 fr$v u l! t \ oespArc g€-3 'il t ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE \ !,v \t\