Pandala Siva Kumar Vs Pandala Padma Leelavathi

PANDALA SIVA KU M AR, S/O SATYANARAYANA, HIND U , AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-296/2/4/1, KHAMMA M CROSS ROADS, KODADA, S U RYAPET, TELANGANA STATE.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

PANDALA PADMA L E ELAVATHI, W/O PANDALA SIVA KU M AR, D/O CHITTELA BHUVA N ESWARA RAO, HINDU, AGED A B OUT 25 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 9 -73-11, KATUPALLI VARI STREET, K O THAPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRIS H NA DISTRICT.

¶14

PANDALA VOJASH, , S/O PANDALA SIVA KUMAR, HIN D U, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, R /O D. NO.9-73-11, KATUPALLI VARI STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAY A WADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RES P ONDENT NO. 2 BEING MIN O R REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTH E R AND NATURAL GUARDIA N I.E., RESPONDENT NO.L HEREIN)

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in suppor t of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order date d 25.05.2023 passed in Crl.MF No.269 of 2022 in FCOP No. 1206 of 2021 on the fik of thePrincipal Family C o urt-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, V ijayawada, and to pass such

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

2

¶19

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 condone the delay of (187 ) days in filing the above Crl. R C against the order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Crl.MP No.269 of 2022 in F.C.O.P (MC) No. 1206 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Family Court-cumIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and to pass such

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶21

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 ay be Pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No. 1983 of 2023 in Crl.MP No.269 of 2022 inF.C.O.P (MC) No. 1206 of 2021, on the file of the Court of the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, and pass such

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.G SRI HARSHA

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶29

I.A.No.1 of 2024

¶30

IN/AND

¶31

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 148/2026

¶32

COMMON ORDER:

¶33

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This Court inclined to proceed with the matter and decide the issue om merits.

¶34

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to set aside the order dated 25.05.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.269 of 2022 in F.C.O.P. No.1206 of 2021 by the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent-wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to the 2^nd respondent-son.

¶35

I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 187 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶36

A perusal of the record would disclose that the present revision is filed against an order granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor son. The petitioner has preferred this revision with a delay of 187 days. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition, the explanation offered is that the petitioner went to Hyderabad and thereafter to Srikakulam for livelihood as a daily wage labourer, and subsequently returned to Kadada, due to which he could not have knowledge of the impugned order.

¶37

4

¶38

This Court is of the view that the said explanation does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. The petitioner has failed to establish bona fide reasons for not approaching this Court within the prescribed time.

¶39

Be that as it may, even on merits, the impugned order granting interim maintenance does not warrant interference. The learned Family Judge passed the order after hearing both sides. It is the case of the 1^st B Vrespondent-wife that the petitioner is working as a software engineer earning about Rs.1,00,000/- per month and is also running a cloth business generating additional income. Though it is contended that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the interim maintenance has been awarded after due consideration of the material available on record. It is also evident that despite engaging counsel, the petitioner did not actively prosecute the matter before the Court below and failed to advance arguments. Considering thefact that, the order under challenge pertains only to interim maintenance granted to the wife and minor child, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to condone the delay of 187 days.

¶40

7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal

¶41

Revision Case is also dismissed.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶44

Date:07.03.2026 KKV

¶45

5