APHC010157172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 342/2024, 352/2024 & 354/2024 Crl.R.C.No.342/2024: Between: Sira Gopikrishna ...PETITIONER A N D Sira Alamanda Anupama and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Crl.R.C.No.342/2024: Between: Sira Gopikrishna ...PETITIONER A N D Sira Alamanda Anupama and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Crl.R.C.No.354/2024: Between: Sira Gopikrishna ...PETITIONER A N D The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K S NAGENDRA VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SAMBOJU BALA GOPAL 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following Common Order: 3 C O M M O N O R D E R: These Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioner herein/husband against the Common Order, dated 26.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.428 of 2023, 429 of 2023 and 726 of 2022, all in FCOP No.120 of 2020. 2. The wife and children of petitioner herein, filed FCOP No.120 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Judge’) under Section 125 (1) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’). As the petitioner/husband did not file counter, he was set ex parte, and on 22.02.2022, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada passed ex parte order, directing the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance at Rs.12,000/- per month to wife and Rs.10,000/- per month each to the two children, from the date of petition. 3. Subsequently, the wife and children/respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.726 of 2022 for recovery of arrears of maintenance, to a tune of Rs.9,92,000/- for the period from 17.01.2020 to 17.08.2022. 4 4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner/husband filed Crl.M.P.Nos.428 of 2023 and 429 of 2023 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity ‘the Act’) to condone the delay of 228 days in filing the petition under Section 126 (2) CrPC to set-aside the ex parte Order, dated 22.02.2022 and to set-aside the ex parte decree, dated 22.02.2022, contending that he did not receive any notice from the Court and it was sent to his previous address at Dilshukhnagar at Hyderabad. 5. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case vide the impugned Common Order, dated 26.07.2023, the learned Trial Judge allowed the Crl.M.P.No.726 of 2022, directing the petitioner/husband to pay arrears of Rs.9,92,000/- to the wife and children for the period from 17.01.2020 to 17.08.2022 within one month from the date of the order and dismissed the Crl.M.P.Nos.428 of 2023 and 429 of 2023 holding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and took a false plea of not receiving the notice. Aggrieved by the Common Order passed in the aforesaid Crl.M.P.Nos.428 of 2023, 429 of 5 2023 and 726 of 2022, the petitioner/husband preferred the present Criminal Revision Cases. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband would contend that the petitioner/husband is not having any knowledge about the Court proceedings and therefore, he failed to file counter in FCOP No.120 of 2020; that the petitioner was attending the Court for counseling without engaging an Advocate and due to lack of knowledge in Court proceedings, he did not file counter; that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from paralysis and father of the petitioner is bedridden due to heart attack and he underwent surgery and he indulged in serving his parents and thereby, he could not file counter within time. Hence, it is prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Cases by setting-aside the Common Order, dated 26.07.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.428 of 2023, 429 of 2023 and 726 of 2022. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents/wife and children filed counter contending that the petitioner/husband is well aware about the maintenance proceedings pending before the trial Court, but, did not attend the Court in spite of several adjournments; that several notices were sent to the petitioner/ husband, but neither he attended the Court nor chose to pay the 6 arrears of maintenance; that the petitioner/husband with a view to avoid payment of maintenance filed the present petitions without valid and proper reasons. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Revision Cases. 8. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 9. A perusal of material on record goes to show that the learned Trial Judge vide Order, dated 22.02.2022 in FCOP No.120 of 2020, directed the petitioner/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.10,000/- each per month to his children. Admittedly, it is an ex parte Order. The petitioner/husband filed Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 228 days in fling an application to set-aside the ex parte order, dated 22.02.2022. 10. A perusal of material on record further goes to show that the petitioner/husband was attending before the trial Court and he, along with his wife, was referred to Mediation and it appears that as there was no reconciliation between them, the petitioner/ husband had to file counter, therefore, the petitioner/husband was well-aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Judge and as he did not appear before 7 the Court and did not file the counter within the stipulated time, he was set ex parte on 28.12.2021 and finally, on 22.02.2022 the learned Trial Judge passed the aforesaid order directing the petitioner/ husband to pay the maintenance to the respondents. 11. The petitioner/husband, as per the Common Order, dated 26.07.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.726 of 2022, has to pay arrears of Rs.9,92,000/- to the respondents/wife and children for the period from 17.01.2020 to 17.08.2022. Though, he is well-aware of the case proceedings and having been referred to mediation by the trial Court, at one stage, blatantly took the plea that he was not served with notice, which is nothing but an after-thought only to evade the payment of arrears. 12. The petitioner/husband at one point of time, contends that he is not aware of the case proceedings and on the other, he contends that his mother was suffering from paralysis and his father suffered from heart attack and both were bedridden and he alone was taking care of them and he indulged in serving his parents, day and night. The plea taken by the petitioner/husband appears to be a false one, for the reason that, the mediation between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was proved futile and as such, he was directed 8 to file counter within stipulated time, but the petitioner/ husband without filing counter and without paying single pie to the respondents, kept quiet for about more than two years, and contends that he is not aware of the case proceedings. Therefore, there is no merit and force in the contention raised by the petitioner/husband. The learned Trial Judge on considering the facts and circumstances of the case in right perspective, rightly dismissed the petitions. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Judge. The Criminal Revision Cases deserve to be dismissed. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the Criminal Revision Case Nos.342 of 2024, 352 of 2024 and 354 of 2024 are dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these Criminal Revision Cases shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 25th February, 2025. DNB