APHC010426432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 964/2024 Between: 1. KONDAPALLI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O SF-2, SRI SAI KRISHNA RESIDENCY, OLD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROAD, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMAVARATHI. 2. KONDAPALLI NAGA RANI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.TF-3, KKR TOWERS, MILK BAZAR ROAD, PRASADAMPADU VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. KONDAPALLI JYOTHIRMAYI, D/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.TF-3, KKR TOWERS, MILK BAZAR ROAD, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ( 3RD RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT) ...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 Case by setting aside the docket order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.282 of 2024 in MC.No. 355 of 2017 on the file of HONBLE XIV ADDITIONAL 2 DISTRICT JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT VIJAYAWADA and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner by suspending the docket order dated 23.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.282 of 2024 in MC.No. 355 of 2017 on the file of HON’BLE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT VIJAYAWADAand pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PILLI SUNDEEP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 964/2024 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 dated 23.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.282 of 2024 in MC.No. 355 of 2017 on the file of learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, at Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Pilli Sundeep, 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 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed M.C. No. 355 of 2017 against the petitioner seeking monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and during the pendency of the said petition, the parties entered into a compromise, which was recorded on 08.09.2018 in terms of Section 89 of the C.P.C. read with Rule 33 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation Rules, 2017, whereby the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- per month to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 towards maintenance; however, alleging non-compliance of the said settlement, the respondents filed Crl.M.P. No. 282 of 2024 seeking issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) and sentencing of the petitioner to imprisonment, and the learned Judge, by the impugned order, 4 issued NBW, aggrieved by which the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Judge, without properly perusing the records and material papers and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, mechanically issued a Non-Bailable Warrant. Further, the petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 suffers from an unexplained delay of four years, and the Trial Court erred in concluding that notice had been duly served on the petitioner by merely relying upon postal tracking records, which do not establish proper service, thereby vitiating the impugned order issuing the NBW. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court, as the materials, including the postal track records, indicate that notice was duly served and received by the petitioner, and hence, the contention to the contrary cannot be accepted. The Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in issuing Non-Bailable Warrant to the petitioner in view of the his failure to comply with the maintenance order and the delay in filing of the petition by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 does not absolve the petitioner of his obligation to pay maintenance. Hence, the revision case is devoid of merits and 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 5 arrears and take appropriate decision according to law, as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.03.2026. UPS 6 337 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 964/2024 Dt.17.03.2026 UPS