Heard Smt v. preeti Reddy

2. The state of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building, Hyderabad RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in MC No 1412016 on the file of the junior civil Judge at Kama Reddy Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. V PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRI N KRISHNA SUMANTH Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SIiJANA I CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.6O6 of 21A24 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is hled chall,:nging the order dated 08.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.43 of.2O2O by the learned Sessions .-ludge, Nizamabad District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner hled an application under Section 727 of tlrre Crimiral Rules of Practice seeking condonation of delay of 795 days in fiting a Criminal Revision against the ex parte order dated

15.06.2017 passed in M.C. No.14 of 2016, wher-ein the trial Court had gra.nted monthly maintenance of Rs.li,rlOO/- each to petitioner Nos. I and 2 therein. The petitioner r:arlier hled a petition under Section 5 of the Limitalion Act in Crl.M.P.No. 1457 of 2018 lo condone delay of 444 days, which was dismissed on 13.O 1.2O20. The :espondent opposed the present petition, contending that t-rc petitioner intentionally avoided contesting the case and faited to offer sufficient cause for such prolonged delay. Up,tn hearing both sides and perusing the record, vide o:-der dated i) SKS.J Crl.RC.Uo.606 of 2024 revlslon

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 hling the However, taking a lenient view, the trial Court allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall pay half of the arrears of maintenalce amounting to Rs. 1,44,00O/- within one month, failing which the petition would stand cancelled.

3. Heard Smt. V. preeti Reddy, learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner as welr as Sri B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. I and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State. J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court failed to properry appreciate the financial and personal circumstaaces of the petitioner while directing payment of arrears of Rs. 1,44,0OO/_. Ue 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 t > 3 sKs,J Crl,R-(l.No.606 of 2024 father of the petitioner was hospitalized and later passed away, causing heav_v medical expenses, an I that the petitioner himself sulfered from jaundice and underwent treatment at NIMS and later through Ayurvecli,: methods and that the respondent was employed as a teacher dr.awing a monthly salary of Rs.6,00O/- and was receiving single women pension, lacts which were suppressed before the Court. He further contended that the respordent. being educated and financially independent, acted u,i_h mzrla hde intent by filing false complaints and afhdavits to harass and extract money from the petitioner. Therefore, ht: praved the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by atlowing this criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for r.espondent No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that thc trial Court riglh.tly 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 iLismjss the criminal revision case. 4 sxs,J Crl.R.C.I{o.606 of2024

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 hling 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.1 is that even the present revision petition was hled with delay and that no separate petition for condonation of delay had been hled, rendering the revision not maintainable. He also reljed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another I , Mahabir Singh v. I (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460 h 5 SKS,J Cil-R.ll.No.606 of 2024 Subhash and Others2, and State of Uttar Pradesh v Singhara Singh and Otherss rn support of his sullmissions

8. On consideration of [he rival submissions, i' is evident that the trial Court, while allowing the condonaiic'n p(tition, imposed a conclition directing the petitioner to cleposit Rs.1,44,OOO/-, which appears to be dnerous and unreasonable in lhe circumstances of the case When the delay is condoned, the Court cannot impose :lrL ex<:essive financial burden that clefeats the purposc of gLanting such relief. Though the counsel for the responden t submitted that the pelition is not maintainable due Lo I'he delay in hling the revision and that no application has ltren filed to condone the same, and he also rclied upon several judgments. However, the present revision has.Leen filed only to the extent of seeking a reduction in the z'nrount to be paid for compliance with the condition imposec ly the trial court. It is also noted that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,4O,00O/- towards the raintr:nance amount. Having regard to the same, arnd in ord,:r to afford 'z(2008) 1supreme court cases 358 r 1963 scc online sc 23 6 SKS,.I Crl.R.C.No.606 of 2024 an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the main matter on merits, this Court is inclined to modify the condition imposed by the trial Court.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, reducing the condition imposed by the trial .Court to the extent o[ the amount already deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to contest the set aside petition. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- V. KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR D t //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Sessions Judge'Nizamabad 2. One CC to SRl. V PREETI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N KRISHNA SUMANTH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to PUBLIC PRoSECUToR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies ASR/PSL k HIGH COURT DATED:03/11t2025 TFIE s \\, !{ruu6 * TeHEt) , Ln, .i ) ORDER CRLRC.No.606 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC s -d.A Vk- td['65