APHC010677192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN / AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1460/2025 Between: KATRAGADDA PRATAP KUMAR, S/O.SESHAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O.CHAVATAPALEM VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDALPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KATRAGADDA ALIAS BEZAWADA RAJANI KUMARI, W/O. PRATAP KUMARD/0. BEZAWADA SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS,OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHAVATAPALEM VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. NAGURU SIVA SAIKRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2026 (for short ‘BNSS’) has 2 been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2023 in M.C.No.48 of 2023 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole. 2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 310 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard Sri Gannavarapu Suryam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Naguru Siva Sai Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, as the mother of the Petitioner was suffering from ill health and old age ailments, he could not contact his counsel to file the revision. As such, delay of 310 days in filing the revision has occurred, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence, prayed to condone the same. It is further submitted that interim maintenance granted to Respondent No.1 / wife is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel would submit that Respondent No.1 / Wife has landed properties including agricultural land and the same has been suppressed before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the explanation offered by the Petitioner for causing inordinate delay of 310 days in filing the revision, is not tenable. The learned trial Judge, after considering the material on record, has rightly granted interim 3 maintenance. As such, there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the said order. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made, it is not the case that the Petitioner has not been pursuing the matter in person. He has engaged a counsel, who is very much available on record. The Petitioner cannot plead ignorance of law and file this revision with an inordinate delay of 310 days. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that no convincing or satisfactory explanation has been offered to condone the delay. The Petitioner has failed to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control. In the absence of any bona fide and sufficient cause, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to raise all theirs contentions before the trial Court and the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without granting any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.04.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1460 / 2025 Dt.20.04.2026 Dinesh