The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the order dated 11-05-2022 passed in DVC No. 39 of 2021 by the learned ll Add.l.Junior Civil Judge Cum XIX Addl Metropolltan Magistrate Cyberabad Malkajgiri in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 including execution of the order dated 11- 05-2022 passed in DVC No. 39 of 2021 by the learned ll Addl Junior Civil Judge Cum XIX Addl Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Malkajgiri pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G. Ravi Chandran Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K. Pallavi The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.114O of 2024 ORDER: The present Criminal Revision Case has been frled under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS seeking to call for the records from the Court of learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda by setting aside the order dated I1.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.383 of 2022 in Crl.A(SR).No.924 of 2022 and to allow the delay condone petition to condone the delay of 4l days in hling the Criminal Appeal against D.V.C.No.39 of 2021, dated 1I.O5.2O22 by allowing the Crl.M.P.No.383 of 2022 in Crl.A(SR).No.924 of 2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l herein is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.l herein Their marriage was performed on 29.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs. Immediately after marriage, respondent No.1 joined the company of petitioner No.1 at Sitaphalmandi. Before marriage, she was informed that petitioner No.l was a Software Engineer and working at New Zealand. But a-fter marriage, she came to know the he is not a Software Engineer and only studied B.Sc. arld for I 2 Ft\t \ claiming more dowry, petitioners lied about the educational qualihcation. On 30.06.2015 petitioner No.1 went back to New Zealand and shortly after, respondent No.1 joined him there. Thereafter, he started harassing her both mentally and physically. Petitioner No.1 told respondent No.1 about his debts. Although she studied C.A, petitioner No.1 forced her to take up odd jobs at Petrol Pump, Restaurants and Supermarkets etc., to clear his debts. Respondent No. 1 worked beyond the hours and supported the petitioner No.1. Though petitioner No.1 tortured respondent No. 1 without providing sufficient food, she did not leave his company. In the year 2Ol7, they both visited India for 10 days and even though she stayed at her in-laws house and took care of all the household works, her mother-in-law expressed dissatisfaction with her. Taking the sarne as advantage, after flying to New Zedand petitioner No.l harassed respondent No.1. Meanwhile, respondent No. I got pregnant and in the scans she came to know tl-rat she was going to have a girl child. Petitioner No.1 got agitated about the same and harassed her. He did not provide her proper food and even if she fell sick, she was not taken to the doctor. Later on, respondent No.l delivered and I 3 petitioner No.I had never taken care of respondent No.l and her child. All of a sudden petitioner Nb.l sent communication of divorce to respondent No.1 disturbing respondent No.l and her parents. As such, respondent No.1 lodged a complaint against the petitioners. On intervention of elders, respondent No.1 again joined the company of petitioner No.1 but there is no change in the attitude of petitioner No.l and his parents. They again started harassing respondent No.1. Hence she hled D.V.C.No.39 of 2027.

3. The trial Court uide order dated 1I.O5.2O22 in D.V.C.No.39 of 2021 has allowed the D.V.C. as follows: (1) granting maintenarrce of a sum of Rs.3O,O00/- per month to respondent No.1 and her child from the date of frling of that petition and shatl be deposited in respondent No.l's bank account on or before loth of every subsequent month (2) Petitioners a-re ordered to pay Rs.5,OO,OO0/- to respondent No.1 towards compensation within three months from the date of that order. 4 (3) Petitioners are directed to return Dowr5r cash, gold, silver, marriage cash gifts, engagement and marriage expenses and passport of child

4. The petitioners herein are the respondents 1n D.V.C.No.39 of 2O2l on the hle of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri. They filed Cr1.M.P.No.383 of 2022 in Crl.A(SR).No.924 of 2022 under Rule 127 of the Criminal Rules of Practice read .with Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 41 days caused in filing the Appeal against the order dated

11.O5.2O22 passed in D.V.C.No.39 of 2021.. The appellate Court uide impugned order, dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.383 of 2022 in Crl.A(SR).No.924 of 2022 stating that the petitioners failed to show sufhcient cause for preferring the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present criminal revision case.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is not the length of delay that would be required to 5 be considered but, it is the cause for the delay which has to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of " sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay, the delay deserves to be condoned. If the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of tlelay, the same would not be condoned. Therefore, relying on the decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India and anotherr, Sheo Raj Singh lDeceasedf Through LRS. & Others. Vs. Union of India & another2, Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anothers, Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs & Others Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LAfa, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the appellate Court had erroneously dismissed the application frled by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 41 days caused ln preferring the Appeal and sought to set aside the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 contended that the appellate Court, upon careful scrutiny 'Civil Appeal Nos-8435-8436 of 2024 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.2733-2734 of 2O24], '? Civit Appeal No.5867 of20l5 3 2020 Law Suit (SC) 687 a Special [rave Petition (Civil) No.3 t248 of2018 (- 6 .l of the material available on record rightly passed the impugned order and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.

8. The appellate Court, upon careful consideration of the material available on record, observed that the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 41 days caused in preferring the Appeal. The reason for the day-to-day delay is not clearly explained by the petitioners. Therefore, the appellate Court, considering the attitude of the petitioners, had rightly dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.383 of 2022 in Crl.A(SR).No.924 of 2022.

9. Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the documentary evidence available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient view as the petitioners might have undergone physica-l incarceration and mental agony in roaming around the Courts and tal<jng into consideration of petitioner Nos.l's old aged parents, who are dependent on his" income, this Court is inclined to reduce the maintenance from Rs.30,00O/- to Rs.15,OOO/- ald 7 petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit the same in the credit of SB Account of respondent No.1 on or before 10th of every calendar month. The petitioner No.1 is also directed to deposit the accrued arrears if any to the credit of D.V.C.No.39 of 2O2I on the Iile of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, respondent No.l is directed to file an application before the learned trid Court seeking withdrawal of the said amount. The trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

10. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. SD'- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGTSTRAR / /ITRUE COPY// sEcn OFFICER to'.,. ,n" r Additionar sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda. (with records, if anY) 2. Two ccs to the pruri" p..""utor, High court for the state of Telangana at 3. o;; CC to dri G. ilavi Chandran, Advocate [OPUC] ;. o;" CC to Sri K. Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies HYderabad. [OUT] Kami?SL "1,^r HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 i .a /^' .+':j"^- -- gi r.'t ,, .s .\s ::i:is 1 .v + \\ ORDER CRLRC.N o.114oof 20t{, DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISTON CASE 1l