IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 480 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order passed in I.A.No. 277 of 2023 in F.C.O.P (M.C) 670 of 2021 dated 18.10.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur District at Guntur in order to dismiss the main suit F.C.O.P 670 of 2021. Between: Pramod Yalamanchili, S/o. Y.S.S. Rao, aged about 37 years, Christian by belief. Native Address of. LIG A 76, Dr. As Rao Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 500062, Telangana, India. Mobile no. 91-756 943 3913, Email- pramody7@gmail.com ...PETITIONER AND 1. Aluri Venkata Sujana, D/o. Aluri Samba Siva Rao, aged about 31 years. Native Address of. Door No. 11-770/1, A-5, 4th Lane, Balaji Nagar, Gorantia, Guntur, Pincode- 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Yalamanchili Asher (minor), Rep.by Aluri Venkata Sujana, aged about 5 years. Address of. Door No. 11-770/1. A-5, 4th Lane, Balaji Nagar, '... ©orantia, Guntur, Pincode-522034, Andhra Pradesh, India k. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1. Aluri Venkata Sujana, D/o. Aluri Samba Siva Rao, aged about 31 years. Native Address of. Door No. 11-770/1, A-5, 4th Lane, Balaji Nagar, Gorantia, Guntur, Pincode- 522034, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Yalamanchili Asher (minor). Rep.by Aluri Venkata Sujana, aged about 5 years. Address of. Door No. 11-770/1, A-5, 4th Lane, Balaji Nagar, Gorantia, Guntur, Pincode-522034, Andhra Pradesh, India ...Petitioners/Respondents/Petitioners AND Pramod Yalamanchili, S/o. Y.S.S. Rao, aged about 37 years, Christian by belief. Native Address of. LIG A 76, Dr. As Rao Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad - 500062, Telangana, India. Mobile no. 91-756 943 3913, Email- pramody7@gmail.com ...Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent 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 vacate the interim orders, dated 22-03-2024, passed by this Hon'ble Court in LA. No.1 of 2024 in C.R.P No.480 of 2024 against all further proceedings in FCOP (MC) No. 670 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court Judge, Guntur and to dismiss the C.R.P No.480 of 2024 with exemplary costs Counsel for the Petitioner : PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010040682024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BAB [3311] MB TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 480/2024 Between: Pramod Yalamanchili ...PETITIONER AND Aluri Venkata Sujana and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 18.10.2023, in I.A.No.277 of 2023 in FCOP No.670 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur, filed under Order IX rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order, dated 30.11.2022, passed against the petitioner. 2. Fleard the petitioner/party-in-person and Sri S.S Ramakrishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2. 3. The respondents herein filed FCOP (M.C) No.670 of 2021 praying for a decree against the petitioner herein for granting maintenance @ Rs.3,00,000/- per month towards maintenance. The petitioner herein is the respondent in FCOP (M.C) No.670 of 2021. On 30.11.2022, the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the Court due to his ill-health, and therefore, an ex parte order came to be passed 30.11.2022. The petitioner filed petition under Order IX rule 7 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 30.11.2022, passed against him. The petition was opposed by filing a counter. on 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, allowed the petition on condition that the petitioner herein shall file counter in the main case on or before 16.11.2023, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. 3 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred revision before this Court. 6. The revision petitioner mainly urged the following grounds in the grounds of revision:- 1. The petitioner received summons through registered post but copy of the main petition was not enclosed with the notice nor was it served through process server of the Court; 2. Thereafter, in spite of direction of the Court to serve the copy, it was not served; 3. On 21.09.2022, when the petitioner complained of non furnishing copy of the petition, Sri G.Kamalakara Rao, Advocate, who had no capacity to represent directed the petitioner to receive the copy and sign on the memo; It is only on 30.11.2022, for the first time, the petitioner 4. could not attend as he was hospitalized in emergency. However, the trial Court set him ex parte though the other side parties were consistency absent and the same was brought to the notice of the Court several times; 4 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 The trial Court took no objection to the respondents though they are continuously absent without representation and it ought to have 5. condemned their absence and should have disposed of the main case. 6. Order IX, rule 8 CPC contemplates mere appearance of the defendant; 7. Section 256 CrPC contemplates dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant, but the same has not been followed in respect of the proceedings before the trial Court in view of the absence of the petitioners in the main proceedings though CrPC is applicable to the proceedings; 8. The affidavit of ‘assets and liabilities’ was not found in the record of the Court below; 9. The petitioner filed petition for plaint rejection, return and dismissal of the suit. The trial Court, in the impugned order described the brief averments of the petition filed to reject the main petition but failed to mention the written endorsement and the answer given to the objection, i.e., the petition is maintainable as the proceedings under 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 Section 125 CrPC are civil in nature as held by the apex Court in Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar^; 10. The trial Court ought to have answered prejudice on equal application of law and why the ex parte order was passed against the petitioner; 11. The Court below, in the impugned order, made objectionable remarks against the petitioner by misrepresenting his view through selective distortion of facts; 12. The trial Court, in the impugned order, attributed ulterior motive to the petitioner, though he approached the higher Court for fair opportunity of trial; 13. The petitioner complained against the trial Judge to the Principal District Judge on 22.05.2023 in view of the misuse of power; 7. The petitioner appearing in person through video conferencing submitted that he is challenging filing of FCOP itself as there is no jurisdiction since the petitioner in the maintenance petition in FCOP (M.C) No.670 of 2021 has not complied the mandatory obligation to file the statement of ‘assets and liabilities’ and further 1®* respondent has her own means of living whereas the revision petitioner has no means '(2004) 5 see 196 6 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 as admitted by the 1®^ respondent in the previous proceedings filed for custody of the child. Thus, he vehemently contends that the petition in FCOP (M.C) No.670 of 2021 ought to be rejected. Therefore, he lays emphasis on the maintainability of the main proceeding before the trial Court rather than challenging the condition imposed in the order impugned in the revision petition while allowing the said petition, which was filed by him. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the revision petitioner filed the revision against the order, dated 18.10.2023 in I.A.No.277 of 2023 which was filed under Order IX rule 7 CPC, he cannot challenge the maintainability of the main petition in FCOP No.670 of 2021 and the scope of this revision petition is limited only to the legality of passing the order passed in I.A.No.277 of It is further submitted that there was compliance of the mandatory requirement of filing the statement of ‘assets and liabilities’ before the trial Court and its copy was filed along with the memo dated 16.12.2024. The learned counsel further submitted that the contention that the 1®* respondent admitted the incapacity of the revision petitioner in the previous proceedings is a matter of appreciation of contentions by the trial Court and is not a ground in the revision petition to quash the 2023. 7 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480of 2024 proceedings pending before the trial Court, that too, in a revision petition which was filed against the orders in I.A.No.277 of 2023. 9. After the respondents filed memo, dated 16.12.2024, along with the copy of the material documents, the revision petitioner has not responded. 10. As rightly contended by the respondents, the scope of the revision petition is to examine the legality of the order passed in I.A.No.277 of 2023. In fact, the petition filed by the revision petitioner herein under Order IX rule 7 CPC was allowed by the trial Court with a condition to file counter within the stipulated period. Instead of complying the condition and contesting the proceedings in the main case, this petition was filed by the revision petitioner. 11. The revision petitioner has not stressed on the condition imposed in the order in I.A.No.277 of 2023, rather, under the guise of filing the revision petition against the order in I.A.No.277 of 2023, he is challenging the maintainability of the proceedings for maintenance pending before the trial Court on the ground that this Court can examine the maintainability of the petition by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 12. In the decision in The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Kishore Prasad Gupta^, it was held at paras 29 to 31 as follows: “29. This Court is exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the law is well settled that the legality of the order, which is to be looked into by the Court exercising power under Article 227, need not be interfered with unless the error appears on the face of the record said to be manifest in the nature or the order passed by the concerned court is without jurisdiction. 30. It is the settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the court exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, as conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is very least and the same can only be exercised if there is manifest error or the jurisdictional error. 31. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patil^, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee'*, wherein, it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court's discretion to remove the hardship ^MANU/JH/0572/2024 ^2010;INSC:422 : (2010) 8 SCC 329 ^AIR 1951 Calcutta 193 9 BSBJ C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court's power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner, i. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals.” 13. No doubt, this Court can examine the correctness of the proceedings before the Courts within the jurisdiction of this High Court, but the petitioner on one hand filed revision petition challenging the order in I.A.No.272 of 2023 however raised the grounds challenging the maintainability of the main proceedings for maintenance. As such, by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when this Court examined the grounds raised by the revision petitioner, it revealed that the respondents complied the mandatory requirement of filing the statement of assets and liabilities etc. Therefore, the objection raised on this ground is not maintainable. 10 BSB,J C.R.P.No.480 of 2024 • ir Nextly, with regard to admission of the 1®* respondent regarding the financial capacity of the revision petitioner is concerned, since the allowed to contest the proceedings, he can file 14. revision petitioner was the counter along with supporting evidence and raise all such objections, since it is a matter of appreciation of evidence Under these circumstances, this Court does not see any merit in to the revision petitioner to raise all 15. the revision petition. It is left open grounds before the trial Court on merits regarding the issues which are based on mixed question of fact and law besides question of facts or law alone. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAF! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 16. St //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court-cum-Xll Additional District Judge, Guntur District at Guntur One CC to 2 Pramod Yalamanchili, S/o. Y.S.S. Rao aged years Ch^tefen by belief, Native Address of. LIG A 76, Dr. As Rao Nag ■ ' ' Hyderabad - 500062, Telangana lndra. Mobile no. 91-756 943 3913, Email- pramody7@gmail.com, PARTY IN PERSON[OPU ] 2. One CC to SRI. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies SD vna HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.480 of 2024 0 6 MAR 2025 m r/l Co Current Section DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS