Allowed

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam v. Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2019CRLP/7109/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashed lower courts' rejection of a recall petition. The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition, directing the trial court to recall the petitioner for limited cross-examination on her alleged forcible entry into the respondent's house during his absence and to decide on the admissibility of any documents produced then.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.P.No.2679 of 2013 allowed; P.W.1 recalled for further cross-examination solely regarding forcible entry and house occupation; trial court to decide admissibility of documents during such examina

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Criminal Petition No.7109 of 2014

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The challenge in this Criminal Petition at the instance of respondent in M.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram, is to the order in Crl.R.P.No.10 of 2013 passed by learned Judge, Family Court-cumV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam dismissing the said Crl.R.P by confirming the order in Crl.M.P.No.2679 of 2013 passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chodavaram, refusing to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

¶5

2. The factual matrix is thus:

¶6

(a) The 1^st respondent herein filed M.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of Addl. JFCM, Chodavaram against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance. It appears when the matter was coming up for arguments on behalf of respondent in the M.C., he filed Crl.M.P.No.2679 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.2680 of 2013 seeking to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination and to confront her xerox copies of certain documents. The reason for invoking a recall of P.W.1 according to him is that the present M.C and some other cases are pending between the parties and four days prior to 29.05.2013, he went from Visakhapatnam to Dwaraka Tirumala by locking his house

¶7

¶8

UDPR, J Crl.P.No.7109 of 2014

¶9

and on 29.05.2013 when he returned home, he found his house was opened and on enquiry he came to know that during his absence, on 26.05.2013 (Sunday) his wife Smt., Radha (petitioner in M.C, ) broke open the locks and entered the house forcibly without his permission and when he questioned, she threatened him with dire consequences. She had no right to enter the house when the court cases are pending between the parties and her act amounts to house breaking and criminal trespass. Hence, he gave a report to S.H.O., Gajuwaka Police Station, who issued a receipt dated 31.05.2013. He also made a representation to the Circle Inspector of Police, Duvvada Police Station dated 29.05.2013. According to the petitioner, since the respondent herein has been residing in his house by forcibly throwing him out, she does not deserve maintenance and provision for residence. Therefore, it is pertinent to cross-examine her on the subsequent events which took place as stated supra . On these pleas, he filed Crl.M.P.No.2679 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.No.2680 of 2013 seeking to recall P.W.1 and receive the documents sought to be produced by him. The trial Court dismissed both the petitions through the common order dated 11.06.2013 holding that the documents sought to be marked were Xerox copies and hence inadmissible in evidence and the documents are not useful and relevant to determine the maintenance case and further, P.W.1 was already cross-examined

¶10

¶11

UDPR, J Crl.P.No.7109 of 2014

¶12

at length and at this stage he cannot be permitted to further crossexamined her to fill up the lacunae in his case. Whereas, the Judge, Family court dismissed the petition on the ground that no revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order. Hence, the instant Criminal Petition.

¶13

Notice served on respondents, but there is no representation.

¶14

On a careful scrutiny of the facts, the fulcrum of petitioner’s case is that pending M.C., the respondent who is his wife forcibly entered and occupied his house during his temporary absence and in that view, she does not deserve maintenance and provision for residence and in order to question her on this subsequent event, her recall for further cross-examination is essential. This Court is thoroughly convinced that recall of P.W.1 is apposite in a fact situation like this since certain crucial incidents allegedly took place after the cross-examination of P.W.1. Whether she forcibly entered the house of the petitioner and occupied the same during his temporary absence and if so, what will be its consequences on her maintenance application, has to be analysed and evaluated factually and legally while hearing the arguments in the maintenance case. Hence, the factum of her occupying the house of the petitioner, if it is true, is not altogether alien to the maintenance case. The admissibility of documents sought to be produced by him is concerned, the same

¶15

¶16

UDPR, J Crl.P.No.7109 of 2014

¶17

has to be taken into consideration when the petitioner produces any documents during the further cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore, I am constrained to hold that the Courts below were not correct in making outright rejection of petitioner’s request for recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

¶18

In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside the orders of the Courts below. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2679 of 2013 is allowed and trial Court is directed to recall P.W.1 for further crossexamination only on the aspect of her allegedly entering the house of the petitioner by force during his temporary absence and occupying the same. The trial Court shall fix a date for further crossexamination of P.W.1 and the petitioner shall complete the crossexamination on the same date without seeking further time. If any documents are sought to be marked by the petitioner during the aforesaid further cross-examination, the trial Court shall decide their admissibility under the relevant law.

¶19

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

05.11.2019 MS

¶21

_______________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam v. Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandrasi Krishna Murthy, Visakhapatnam v. Smt. Vandrasi Radha, Visakhapatnam and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Bala Murali Krishna, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

U.Venkata Subbaiah, Vs Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy Vari Devastanam

Madamesetty Shivakumar, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

M.Subbarayudu, Vs The Vice-Chairman 8s Managing Director

Nadipudi Tirumala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Paidimaria Kamalamma Vs K Mohan Rao