APHC010165512026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 374/2026 Between: 1. NK (TS) N.R.MADHU BABU, (EX-ARMY),, S/O N.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, CHERUVUMUNDARAPALLE VILLAGE, KAVETIGARIPALLE POST, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 517172, CELL NO.94922 59906 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. N NARMADA, D/O N.CHANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER, D.N0.4-4-544/D, NEHRU NAGAR, TIRUPATI URBAN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. PIN NO.517501. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Revision petition by setting aside the impugned Non-Bailable Warrant, issued against the petitioner herein by order dated 12.01.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.256/2025 in M.C.No.27/2006 on the file of the Hon'ble V Additional District Judge - cum - Family Court, Tirupati. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 2 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 STAY all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.256/2025 in M.C.No.27/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble V Additional District Judge - cum - Family Court, Tirupati, pending disposal of the main criminal revision case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THULASI ESWARA REDDY S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 374/2026 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set-aside the impugned Non-Bailable Warrant, issued against the petitioner herein vide order dated 12.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2025 in M.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge - cum - Family Court, Tirupati. 2. Heard Sri Thulasi Eswara Reddy.S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance. 3. The petitioner herein is the husband. The respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed an M.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge - cum - Family Court, Tirupati, wherein, the learned Judge, vide order dated 27.01.2009, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- each to the wife and two minor children at the time. Subsequently, after a period of nine years, the wife/respondent No.2, filed an enforcement petition in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2025 in M.C.No.27 of 2006, wherein, the learned Judge issued a Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judge without perusing the record and material papers produced by the petitioner 4 and without affording any opportunity of hearing, issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner on 12.01.2026. The absence of the petitioner on the given date is due to health issue and his absence is not deliberate and wanton. 5. As can be seen from the record, the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 reveals that the wife filed a petition seeking enforcement of the order dated 27.01.2009, and the petitioner herein entered appearance by filing a vakalat. It further shows that the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted before the Trial Court that he is not prepared to file any petition to condone the absence of his client and that a warrant may be issued. However, it is the contention of the petitioner before this Court that he has already paid all the arrears of maintenance. This Court is of the view that if no amount is due to the wife, his presence in the enforcement proceedings would not be necessary and the question of issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant would not arise. The impugned order also shows that the learned counsel for the wife before the Trial Court submitted that the husband is liable to pay arrears of maintenance, and though the enforcement petition claims arrears of maintenance for a period of nine years, it cannot be dismissed merely on that ground; the learned Judge can proceed to adjudicate the matter to the extent it is maintainable. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any warranting circumstances to interfere with the order dated 12.01.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2025 in M.C.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional District 5 Judge - cum - Family Court, Tirupati, issuing Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioner. Therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the learned Judge is directed to look into the issue regarding the payment of the arrears and take appropriate decision according to law, as expeditiously as possible. Learned Judge is further directed to look into the representation which is made before this Court as to the payment of entire arrears and that there is no due amount in this matter. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.04.2026. UPS 6 97 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 374/2026 Dt.07.04.2026 UPS