The High Court · 2025

4. The State Of Telangana, Rep. by its public prosecutor, High Court at I ...Respondents/Petitioners Hyderabad lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 M.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Judge, lAdditional Family Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision case. 7 Counsel for the Petitioner SRI VENKAT RATHNAM THANNE:t .RU Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 3: MOHD ALI AMIR Counsel for the Respondents No.4: Sri D.Arun Kumar, Addit cnal public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER a THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.Z34 of 2Ct22 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is frled challenging the order dated 26.09.2022 passed in M.p.No.25 of 2022 in M.C.No.14 of 2Ot9 by the learned Judge, I Additionai Family Court, Hyderabad.

2. The brief facts of tJ e case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 126(2) Cr.p.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 18.05.2019 passed in M.C.No.14 of 2019, wherein he was directed to pay Rs.2O,OOO/- per month each to his three minor children. The petitioner contended that he was in Saudi Arabia when the case was filed, was unaware of the proceedlngs, arrd sought an opportunity to contest and adduce evidence. The respondent, however, Iiled a counter denying the allegations and stated that the notices were duly sent to tJre petitioner,s address but were returned as "not claimed," and that he wilfully avoided service. He also contended tJ.at the application was barred by limitation. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, held that a 2 SKIt,J c8lR.( . 0.734 ol 2022 the petitioner detiberately avoided service of noLic: remained ex parte throughout the proceedings, and that Se': ion 126(2) Cr.P.C. was not applicable as no sufficient cause "as shown for setting aside the order. Accordingly, the t 'ial Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merits. Aggrievr d thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision ca;

3. Heard Sri T. Venkat Rathnam, learnr:' counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner as uell as Sri Mohd. Ali Amir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3 and Sri D. Arun Kume r, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on be-r rlf of the respondent No.4 - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitte orders passed by the tria.l Court were contrir I that the y to la\ /, evidence, and probabilities of the case and that *Lr petitioner I was in Saudi Arabia from 23.06.2018 to O7.1 L 20 19 and hence was not in India when the notices in M-C.No. L4 of 2Ol9 were sent to his Hyderabad address' He further submitted that the respondents, with mala fide intention, mis;l :d t] e trial Court by hling a false track report showing servic : of notice 3 SHS,J Crl.R.C.[o.734 of 2O22 andsucceededinobtainingarlexparteorder.Hecontended that the petitioner came to know about the M'C' order only on l2.lt.2llgwhen police visited his house to execute the NBW' and immediately upon his return to India' he appeared before the Court on 15'11'2019' filed an application under Section 70(21 Cr.P.C', and paid part of the arrears as directed' Irarned counsel further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was not willfully avoiding service ald ought to have allowed the petition to set aside the ex parte order arrd permit him to contest the case' ln support of his submissions he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Veerisetty Ramesh Babu v' Veerisetty Rama Devil, wherein this Court held that proceedings under Section must be conducted in the presence of the as per Section 126(21 Cr 'P 'C' Therefore' he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by altowing this revision case' 125 Cr.P.C. respondent a

5. On the other hand' Iearned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 frled counter affrdavit stating that the respondents werethechildrenofthepetitionerthroughhisfrrstwife,and 'crt.n.c.tto.1009 0f 2019, dated 24 04'2020 4 SKIi,J Ctl.R.<:. 0.734 ol 2022 that the petitioner, instead of complying with the lz udul order of the trial Court in M.P.No.25 of 2022 (old M., No.942 of 20791 in M.C.No. 14 of 2Ol9 dated 26.O9.2022, ht i filect the present revision only to evade payment of mairrte rance. He further that the trial Court, upon due considere I on of the materia.l on record, .ightly grarrted maint€ larce of Rs.2O,OOO/- per month to each respondent l)l- assigning cogent reasons and that the petitioner hacl c rliberately suppressed material facts and adopted evasive .actics by avoiding service of notices, which were sent to I is correct address ald returned as "not claimed." Even vr 1 en NBWs were issued, the wife of the petitioner was found r :siding at the same premises, thereby demonstrating his deliberate evasion. He contended that after divorcing the rcl pondents' mother oo 2O.O7.2076, the petitioner neglected h : children, who were therea-fter brought up by their matemal 11 andfather until his death on 17.11.2022. Therefore, he : 'ayed the Court to dismiss the crimina-l revision case. a

6. In the light of the submissions made b1 both the learned counsel and a perusa-l of the materia.l a r Lilable on record, it is evident that the main maintenance cas( was hled ] sxs,J CILR-C-No.734 ol2022 by respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the children of the revision petitioner through his frrst wife. The record discloses that the petitioner had divorced his first wife in the year 2016, a-fter which she contracted a second marriage, ald since then, the children have been residing under the care and custody of their materna-l grardfather, who subsequently passed away on ll.ll.2o22. The respondents a-re now aged about 19, 18, and 12 years, respectively, arrd there is no other person presently taking care of them. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of the petitioner to provide maintenance to his children.

7. Having regard to the fact that the order impugned was ) passed ex parte and that the petitioner has now expressed his willingness to contest the proceedings on merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity ought to be afforded to the petitioner to put for*r his defence.

8. "Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order dated 26.09.2o22 passed in M.P.No.2S of 2022 ia M.C.No.14 of 2OL9 by the learned I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The trial Court is directed to restore the matter to its frle, afford reasonable I 6 sEsnJ Ct R.C.No.734 ot 2022 oPPortunity to both parties, and dispose o: the M.C on merits and in accordance with law. Horn 3y6r, as the respondents are the children of the petiti.t ner and are dependent on him for their livelihood, he revision petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenr .nce amount as directed by the trial Court i.e., Rs.2(). )OO/_ each, maintenance without defzLr.lt, till the toward interim disposal of the interim maintenance petition., Miscellaneous applications, if aly pendin 3 shall stald closed SD/. V.KAVITHA E EPUry REGISTRAR a NOTE: This order is modified as per the Court order dated 01-12-2025 passed in f .A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.Z34 of 2fr22 by modifying the para No.8 of the ordei--- dated 09-'10-2025 as follows: B. "According[r,.the Criminal Revision Case rs allowed, setting aside the order dated 26-09-2022 passed in M.p.No.25 of 2022 in M.C.No.14 of 2019 bythe learned I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad. The tnal Court is directed to restore the matter to its Jile, afford reasonable opportunity to both parties, and dispose df tne M.d on merits and in accordance with law. However, - ' as the responddnts are the children of the petitioner and are dependent on him for their [vettnood, the revision petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amount as directed by the triat Court i.e, Rs.20,0001- eaif,, iowarO rntenm maintenance without default, till the disposal of the interim maintenance petition.,, ./ This modified order copy substitutes the earlier order despatched onOT-11-2O25. //TRUE COPY// SD/- V.KAVI EPUTY RE CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for theTria ' Bomb Blast Case-Cum Additional Chief Judge-Cum-lX Jubilee Hills Car ditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Hyderabad

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Venkat Rathnam Thanneeru ,Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Mohd Ali Aamir, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL Yr a I HIGH COURT \ DATE D:0911012025 0111212025 t i'1 r.i r 6r-' , JAN 2[2$ l-. t / :SrrAf t :o AMENDED ORDER GRLRC.N o.734 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE a t').D co\< "lb Yr--, c$P