Kurakula Vasudeva Rao , Vasu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI Crl.R.C.No.2617 of 2016 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('the CrPC', for short) is filed by the unsuccessful respondent-husband assailing the order, dated 12.11.2015, of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, passed in M.C.No.2 of 2013.

2.

I have heard the submissions of Sri Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of Ms. T. Radha Rani, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. I have perused the material record. 3.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit as follows: - 'The order impugned is an ex parte order. The petitioner having filed his counter remained ex parte. In D.V.C.No.21 of 2014, the 2nd respondent has admitted that the petitioner is a labourer. During the pendency of the Maintenance Case, the petitioner underwent an operation. Therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court and contest the Maintenance Case. In that view of the matter, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the Maintenance Case to the trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with the procedure established by law.' He would also bring to the notice of this Court that as per the interim order of this Court, dated 24.10.2016, the petitioner deposited Rs.50,000/ - to the credit of M.C.No.2 of 2013 before the trial Court and that the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/ - per month towards maintenance in the afore-stated D.V.C.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-wife would submit as follows: - 'The petitioner is not a labourer. He is doing real estate business.

The petitioner, having entered appearance in the Maintenance Case, filed his counter and later intentionally remained ex parte. He is not paying any maintenance as awarded in the DVC. No permission is accorded to the 2nd respondent-wife to withdraw Rs.50,000/ - deposited by the petitioner to the credit of the Maintenance Case.

5.

Having regard to the submissions and the fact that the order impugned is an ex parte order, this Court is of the considered view that the revision case can be disposed of with appropriate direction. 6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned is set aside and M.C.No.2 of 2013 is remitted to the trial Court for disposal afresh on merits and in strict accordance with the procedure established by law; however, subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall pay Rs.2,000/ - [Rupees Two Thousand only) per month every month to the 2nd respondent herein without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in the Maintenance Case till the final disposal of the said case. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the Maintenance Case, as directed above, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two

(02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to these orders, the warrants, if any, issued by the trial Court against the petitioner shall stand recalled. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent-wife is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/ - deposited by the petitioner to the credit of the Maintenance Case.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI 01.06.2017 Vjl