K Narendra Reddy Vs K Lakshmi

K NARENDRA RED D Y, S/O. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED A BOUT 36 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2/31, KUNUTUR VILLAGE, DHARMAVARAM M ANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI D ISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANT A PUR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

K LAKSHMI, W/O . K. NARENDRA REDDY, D/ O . L. C. RAMANJINEYULU, A GED 36 YEARS, R/O. DHANALAKSHMI ROAD, SOMANDEPALLI VI L LAGE AND MANDAL, SRI SA T HYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHI L E ANANTAPUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY TH E PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD E SH, AT AMARAVATI.

¶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 topleased t o allow the revision case by setting aside the order dated 20.06.2024 passe d in Crl.MP. No.437 of 2022 in MC.N o .2 of 2013 on the file of the Princi p al Judicial Magistrate of First Class, P enukonda and to pass

¶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 pleased to suspend the operation of sentence passed in order dated 20.06.2024 in Crl.MP. No.437 of 2022 in MC.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, pending disposal of Crl.R.C., and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.P NARAHARI BABU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 661/2024

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to set aside the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.437 of 2022 in M.C. No.2 of 2013 by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda. Whereby the said order, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and, on finding that the petitioner committed default in payment of maintenance arrears of Rs.12,000/- for the period from 03.05.2021 to 03.05.2022, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and issued Non-Bailable Warrant against him.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the pendency of Crl.P. No.5257 of 2021 before this Court and also ignored the fact that there is no subsisting matrimonial relationship between the parties. It is further contended that earlier proceedings, including the case under Section 498-A IPC and the connected appeal, were decided in favour of the petitioner, and the maintenance proceedings themselves are under challenge. The proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. have been initiated as a pressure tactic, and the order of

¶32

4

¶33

imprisonment has been passed without proper appreciation of the merits of the case.

¶34

Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Magistrate has passed the order in accordance with law and that no interference is warranted.

¶35

Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance and that there was default in payment of arrears amounting to Rs.12,000/- for the relevant period. The learned Magistrate, upon being satisfied with such default, exercised powers under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and imposed the sentence of simple imprisonment. The contention of the petitioner regarding pendency of other proceedings cannot be accepted in the absence of any material showing that the operation of the maintenance order has been stayed by a competent court. It is a settled principle that mere pendency of proceedings does not absolve a party from complying with an existing order, particularly in matters relating to maintenance.

¶36

This Court can interfere only when there is illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the order under challenge. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has acted within jurisdiction and in accordance with law. The sentence imposed is also within the permissible limits.Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the revision and no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

¶37

5

¶38