APHC010279372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 547/2026 Between: 1. VANKADAVATHU LULLO NAIK ALIAS BURMA NAIK, S/O BIKARI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS, R/O GANDIGANUMALLA THANDA,BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI 2. VANKADAVATHU KOTAMMA BAI, W/O VANKADAVATHU LULLO NAIK BURMA NAIK,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1- 142,GANDIGANUMALA THANDA,BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1729/2025 in M.C.No.18/2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda whereby the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1284 days and consequential relief of setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was dismissed. 2. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the petition, recorded that notice issued to the Petitioner/Husband at the instance of the Respondent/wife was returned with an endorsement of refused. The learned Trial Court further observed that the application suffered from an inordinate delay of 1284 days, far beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and that the Petitioner had failed to furnish any convincing, cogent or satisfactory explanation accounting for such prolonged delay. The learned Magistrate was of the view that the Petitioner had exhibited gross negligence in prosecuting the matter and that the plea advanced lacked bona fides. Consequently, the Petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. Mrs.Sodum Anvesha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 belong to a Scheduled Tribe community and that, in accordance with the customs and usages governing 3 their tribe, the marital relationship between them had already been dissolved. It is her submission that the maintenance proceedings culminated in an ex- parte order directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to Respondent No.2. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner has a substantial and arguable defence to be adjudicated in the maintenance proceedings, particularly with regard to the plea of dissolution of marriage by recognised tribal custom. It is further argued that the Petitioner could not contest the proceedings earlier and that he approached the learned Trial Court seeking to set aside the ex-parte order immediately after receiving notice in the execution proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel therefore submits that one final opportunity may be afforded to the Petitioner to place his defence before the learned Trial Court and that denial of such opportunity would result in grave prejudice, whereas no irreparable injury would be caused to the Respondent if the matter is reopened subject to appropriate conditions. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. It is true that the delay involved in the present case is undoubtedly substantial and cannot be lightly brushed aside. Equally, the conduct of the Petitioner does not inspire complete satisfaction, particularly when the proceedings remained unattended for a considerable period of time. However, it is also a settled principle that procedural prescriptions are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart adjudication on merits. Courts 4 are expected to adopt a justice-oriented approach where refusal to condone the delay would result in foreclosing the opportunity of a litigant to canvass a substantial defence. The record discloses that the maintenance order was passed ex-parte and that the Petitioner seeks to raise a specific contention touching upon the very subsistence of the marital relationship, based on alleged tribal customs. Such an issue, whether ultimately sustainable or not, constitutes a matter requiring adjudication upon evidence by the competent Court. Therefore, the ends of justice would be better served if the Petitioner is afforded one last opportunity to participate in the proceedings and establish his defence before the learned Trial Court. 7. At the same time, the inconvenience and hardship occasioned to Respondent No.2 cannot be overlooked. The Respondent/wife was compelled to pursue both maintenance proceedings and execution proceedings owing to the default of the Petitioner. Therefore, any indulgence shown to the Petitioner must necessarily be balanced by imposing realistic costs so as to compensate the Respondent for the delay and to ensure that the Petitioner prosecutes the matter with due diligence hereafter. 8. Having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interests of justice would be adequately safeguarded by condoning the delay subject to payment of substantial costs. In the considered view of this Court, a sum of Rs.20,000/- would constitute a reasonable and appropriate amount to balance the equities between the 5 parties and to compensate Respondent No.2 for the delay occasioned in the matter. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1729 of 2025 in M.C.No.18 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vinukonda, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the petition seeking condonation of delay stands allowed, subject to the condition that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs before the learned Trial Court on or before 16.09.2026. Upon such deposit, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and afford reasonable opportunity to both parties to establish their respective claims. Failure to deposit the aforesaid costs within the stipulated time shall entail automatic revival of the impugned order without any further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 02.09.2026 VTS