The High Court · 2025

Mr. Pawan Kumar Somisetty, S/o. Mr.S.Shankaraiah, Age 52 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o.5 Altis Street, Truganina, Victoria 3029,Australia, Represented by his General Power of Attorney Sri Sreenivas Somisetty, S/o.Mr.S.Shankaraiah, Age 57 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o.16-1 1-16/N/79, Prashanth Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036 AND I The State of Telangana, Telangana at Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of ...RESPONOENT/STATE 2. Smt. Neelkiran Penumur. D/o. Late P.Janardhana Naidu, Age 53 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o.G-3, Mahogany Block, Amrutha Valley Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

3. Yagnesh Srivenkat S/o.Mr.Pawan Kumar Somisetty Age 20 years, Occ. Student (Taking Coaching as per MC case). R/o.G-3, Mahogany Block, Amrutha Valley Road No. l2, Banjara Hills. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONOENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Docket Order Dated 25.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 569 of 2025 in M.C.No.302 ol 2024 on the file of the I Additional Family Court Judge, lntegrated Family Courts Complex. Hyderabad, at Kalpatharu Bhavan. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Docket Order Dated 25.09.2025 in Crl t\tl P.No. 569 of 2025 in M.C.No.302 ol 2024 on the file of the I Additional Family Court Judge, lntegrated Family Courts Complex. Hyderabad, at Kalpatharu Bhavan pending disposal of the above Quash Petition. ON NO: 13 Between: Mr. Pawan Kumar Somisetty, S/o. Mr.S.Shankaraiah, Age 52 years, Occ. pvt. Service, R/o.5 Altis Street, Truganina, Victoria 3029,Austrati'a. Represented by his General Power of Attorney Sri Sreenivas Somisettv, S/o.Mr.S.Shankaraiah. Age 57 years, Occ. Pvt. Service. R/o.16-11-16/N/70. Prashanth Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036 ..,PETITION ER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ANO

1. The State of Telangana, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor. High Court of I elangana at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/STATE 2. Smt. Neelkiran Penumur, D/o.Late P.Janardhana Naidu. Aoe 53 vears. Occ. Pvt.Emplo-yee, Rio.G-3, Mahogany Block, Amrutha Valiey R6ad No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

3. Yagnesh _Srivenkat S/o.Mr.Pawan Kumar Somisetty Age 20 years, Occ. Student {Taking_ Coaching- as per MC case), R/o.G-3. lvlaholany Block. Amrutha Valley Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to Quash the Docket Order Dated 25.09.2025 passed in Crl.M.p.No. 568 of 2025 in M.C.No.302 of 2024 on the file of the I Addrtional Famrly Court Judge, lntegrated Family Courts Complex, Hyderabad. at Kalpatharu Bhavan. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition. the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the Docket order Dated

25.09.2025 in Cr1 tvl.P.No. 568 of 2025 in M.C.No.302 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Family Court Judge. lntegrated Family Courts Complex, Hyderabad, at Kalpatharu Bhavan pending disposal of the above Quash Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y. Sudhakar Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri V. Jithendar Rao. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITI NN s.130 &1 55 of 20 25 coM NO ER: Since both these Criminal petitions anse out of the same maintenance case and the parties are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

02. The Criminal petition No.13054 of ZO25 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned docket order dated 25.09.2025 passed in CRL.M.p.No.569 of 2025 in M.C.No.30Z of 2024 by the learned I Additional Family Court Judge, lntegrated Family Court Complex, Hyderabad at Kalpatharu Bhavan (for short ,the learned Family Court,), whereby, while considering an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to pay the arrears amount, failing which the petition would be dismissed.

03. The Criminal petition No.13055 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned docket order dated 25.09.2025 passed in CRL.M.p.No.56B of 2025 in M.C.No.302 of 2024 by the learned Family Court, whereby, lvhile considering an application filed under Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read 2 with Order lX Rule 13 read with Section '151 of the Code of civil Procedure, the learned Judge directed tlre petitioner to pay the arrears amount, failing which the petition would be - dismissed.

04. Heard sri Y.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri V. Jithendar Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state-respondent- Perused the record

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed both the Criminal tVliscellaneous Petitions, one seeking to set aside the ex-parte orders dated 22.01.2025 and the other for condonation of delay, vide Crl.M.P.Nos.568 and 569 ot 2025, However, the learned Family court, without affording an opportunity of hearing and without considering the petitions on their merits, passed the impugned conditional orders, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice' Hence, he prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and a direction be issued to the learned Family court to dispose of both the petitions in accordance with raw after providing due opportunity to the petitioner 3

06. on the other hand, the learned Additionat public Prosecutor for the state submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Family courl and prayed to dismiss both these petitions.

07. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this court is of the considered opinion that the conditional orders passed by the learned Family court are contrary to the principles of natura! justice. ln that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the learned Family court are liabte to be, and are accordingly, set aside. consequenfly, the rearned Famiry court is directed to dispose of crl.tM.p.No.569 of 2o2s within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, thereafter, to dispose of crr.t\I.p.No.56g of 2025 within a period of three weeks thereafter. The learned Family court shall afford reasonable opportunity to both parties while deciding the said petitions and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to extend their full cooperation to the learned Family Court for expeditious disposal of the petitions. 4

08. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are - disposed of Asa sequel, miscellaneous applications' if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. G.JYOTHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,ITRUE COPY/' SECTI orrtcen court-cum-xrv Additional Metropolitan Sessions 'o',, The r Additionar .Famiry ' irog", HYderabad lntegrated Famitv courts complex' 2 rhe , ooo't"*:,ff,[it Bf,Xfli:tse' . lff';:1l" *"_rrbric prosecutor, Hish court for the state of reransana at v' 4. One CC to Sri Sudhakar Rao Yeligata Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies uyoeiauao'[ouTl vHiPsr. ( * 11 HIGH COURT DATED:09/1 012025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.13054 & 13055 ot 2025 re lHE S l^1 h C-(. (J {0 ilcy w + DISPOSING OF BOTH CRIMINAL PETITION (k \o 1\ 3t n\ v,'