Kondaveeti Pradeep Kumar Vs Kondaveeti Babitha @ Sagar Babitha

KONDAVEETI BABITHA SAGAR BABITHA, W/O. KONDAVEETI PRADEEP KUMAR, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 21-11-53, LECTURERS COLONY, 2ND LINE, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520011, N.T.R. DISTRICT.

¶13

KONDAVEETI NOVA JOHN, S/O. KONDAVEETI PRADEEP KUMAR, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, MOTHER'S PROTECTION, R/O. D.NO. 21-11-53, LECTURERS COLONY, 2ND LINE, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520011, N.T.R. DISTRICT. (2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN)

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision

¶17

2

¶18

Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 27.06.2023 in CrI.M.P. No. 220 of 2022 in FCOP No. 1192 of 2018 (Maintenance) passed by the learned Prinicipal Family Judge -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada and permit the petitioner for contesting the matter and pass such

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 suspension of Order dated 08.12.2021 in FCOP No. 1192 of 2018 (Maintenance) passed by the learned Principal Family Judge -cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada until disposal of the main CrI.P. and pass such

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.PADMANABHAM A

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.B M KRISHNA PATIBANDLA

¶25

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 829/2023

¶28

JUDGMENT:

¶29

The present Criminal Revision was filed, challenging the order dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Prl.Family Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Vijayawada in Crl.M.P.No.220 of 2022 in FCOP No.1192 of 2018.

¶30

Heard Sri Padmanabham.A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. None represented on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶31

As can be seen from the impugned order, the petitioner herein is the husband who filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.220 of 2022 to set aside the exparte order dated 08.12.2021, wherein the petition which is filed by his wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in FCOP No.1192 of 2018, was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to the 1^st respondent (wife) and Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent (son) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2023.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No.528 of 2019 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 06.06.2019, which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.11.2019 on condition that the petitioner pay costs of Rs.200/-, and the matter was posted on 08.11.2019 for payment of costs. However, the petitioner mistakenly noted the date as 18.11.2019 instead of 08.11.2019 and therefore failed to comply with the order, resulting in dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.528 of 2019 and the case being

¶33

4

¶34

posted for the petitioner’s ex-parte evidence. On 18.11.2019, the petitioner appeared before the Court and paid the costs, but came to know that the petition had already been dismissed on 08.11.2019 for non-compliance. Thereafter, he filed Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2020 seeking restoration of Crl.M.P. No.528 of 2019. During the pendency of the petition, the matter was adjourned from time to time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and due to isolation the petitioner could not secure proper legal assistance. As the petitioner could not appear before the Court on 22.11.2021, the Trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2020 for default, and subsequently the main petition in FCOP No.1192 of 2018 was allowed vide order dated 08.12.2021. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s absence was not wilful and that he has valid grounds to contest the case, and therefore requested that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to prosecute the matter. He also contended that the Trial Court erred in observing that the petitioner tried to take advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic and prolonged the proceedings, as alleged by the first respondent/wife, and that such findings are erroneous and not supported by the records.

¶35

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶36

Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed during the COVID period, i.e., vide order dated 22.11.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.36 of 2020. In

¶37

5

¶38

order to give a fair opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute his case, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.220 of 2022 in FCOP No.1192 of 2018 is restored to the file of the learned Prl. Family Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Vijayawada. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.03.2026 and pursue his matter.

¶39

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶41

Date: 06.03.2026. UPS

¶42

6

¶43

136

¶44

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA