Sri Kondamudi Shyam Kishore v. Smt. M. Pratibha Sharoon
132s41
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL REV|SION CASE NO: 341 OF 2022 Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Judgment dated 17-12-2O21 made in M.C.No.239 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Addi. Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trial of JHCBBC-Cum- Addl. Family Court -Cum- XXlll Addl. Chief Judge - Cum-lX Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad.
Between:
Sri [ondamudi_SfV.qn.r..li19!o1e, S/o. Late Adams, Aged about S0 years, Occ Nil, R/o. H.No.9-4-131/N/82, Niraja Cotony, Totichowki, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND
1. Smt. M. Pratibha Sharoon, W/o. K Shyam Kishore, Aged about 46 years, Occ Private Teacher.
2. Ms. Kondamudi Vironica, D/o. K Shyam Kishore, Aged about 19 years, Occ Student, Both are Fi/o. H. No. 13-6-197/A, Upparbasthi, Kaman, Kulsumpura, Hyderabad-500006.
3. The State of Telangana, Rep. by P.P. Office, High Court of Hyderabad. ...RESPONOENTS/PETITIONERS IA NO;1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order, dt.1Z-12-2O21 passed in M.C. No.239 of 2021, on the file of learned Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge For The Trial of JHCBBC-Cum- Addl. Family Court -Cum-XXttt Addt. Chief Judge -Cum-lX Addl.
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.L.B.KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S. GANESH, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER
r\ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.341 of 2022 ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order in M.C.No.239 of 2020, dated 17.12.2021, on the file of leamed Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court - cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leamed counsel appearing fbr respondent Nos.l and 2 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3.
The brief facts of the case are that the maintenance case is filed by respondent Nos.l and 2 herein against the revision petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.25,0001- for respondent No.l and Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.2, totalling to Rs.45,000/- per month.
CAC,J Crl.R.C No.341 of 2022 4.
The learned Sessions judge considered the oral and documentary evidence fi}ed by respondent Nos.l and 2, as the revision petitioner did not appear before the Court below and an ex parte order was passed directing the revision petitioner to pay Rs.12,0001- per month each to respondent Nos.l and 2 totalling to Rs.24,000 l- per month towards their maintenance from the date of petition and also directed to pay the arrears of maintenance as ordered above from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of order, within three months from the date of order and shall continue to pay regular monthly maintenance to them on or before 5'h of every succeeding month from the month of December,202l' 5.
Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the M.c has preferred this revision case. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that he has not received any notice during the period of COVID and notice was not served on him. On the other hand, judgment discloses that PW-l, though received notice, has not chosen to contest the case. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner specifically contended that he has not received notice and hence he could not contest before the Court below and therefbre, prayed to set aside the order dated 17 .12.2021. I ./
GAC,J Crl.R.C No.341 of 2022 :
6.
on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 appeared and filed a detailed counter denying the contents of the petition and stated that the petitioner has not paid even a single pie till date, inspite of the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 17.12.2021.
7 .
on perusal of the record and considering the submissions of both the parties, it is just and necessary to know whether the revision petitioner has received the notice in M.C No.239 of 2020 or not?
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as respondent Nos.l and 2 have consented to remand the matter back to the trial Court by fixing a time schedule to dispose of the main case. Therefore, this court deems it lf fa appropriate to remand the matter to the trail Court for fresh disposal on merits.
9.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.12.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court. As the evidence of respondent Nos.l and 2 herein is already on record, the trial Court shall record the oral and documentary evidence of revision
GAC,J Crl.R.C No.341 of 2022 1l petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
10. With the above said observations, the criminal revision case is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
sD/- l.
DEPUTY //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To
1. Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC Cum Additional Family Court Cum XXlll Additional Chief Judge Cum lX Addl. MSJ at Hyderabad.
2. Two-CCs to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]
3. One dC to SRI K.L.B.KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD Copies PSK.,f
HIGH COURT DATED i2410312023 1ttE S14 3 u] [?n2rt?3 (
ORDER
*- I CRLRC.No.341 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC WITHOUT COSTS.