Jetti Naveen Kumar Vs Jetti Swapna

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3531 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

JETTI NAVEEN KUMAR, S/o. Komuraiah, aged about 36 Yrs, Occ: Asst. Professor in JNTT, Presently R/o. H.No.7-57l 1, Garrepalli Village, Sulthanabad lVtandal, Peddapalli District.

¶8

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . JETTI SWAPNA, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 44 Yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o. 12-559,8- lncline Colony, Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District. ...RESPONDENT NO.1 /RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶11

lHE STATE OF TELANGANA, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶12

...RESPONDENT NO.2

¶13

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Orders daled 23-01-2025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Peddapalli, in Crl.lr/.P.No. 623 ot 2024 in Crl.M.P. No. 95 of 2024 in Un-registered Criminal Appeal No. ol 2024 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2018, to the extent of payment of 50% of the arrears amount to the Respondent No.'1

¶14

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order vacating order dated 1310312025 passed in lA No 0'1 of 2025 in Crl P No 3531 ot 2025 l.A. NO: l OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Orders dated 2310112025 passed by the Principal District Judge, Peddapalli, in Cr1.tt/l P No. 623 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No. 95 of 2024 in Un-registered Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2018, to the extent of payment of 50% of the arrears amount to the Respondent No.1

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri GANTA RAMAKRISHNA, Advocate for the Petitioner and SRl. JIIHENDER^RAO VEERAMALLA, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent^No.2 and of Sri Shyam S Agarwal for the Respondent No.1

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

¶21

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3531 of 2025

Date: 07.01.2026

Between:

Jetti Naveen Kumar

. . Petitioner

AND

Jetti Swapna and another

¶28

..Respondents

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (lor short^'BNSS') by the petitioner/appellant to quash the proceedings against him in Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2024 in Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2024 in Unregistered Crl.A.No. 2024 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Judge, Peddapalli.

¶31

Heard Sri Ganta Ramakrishna, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla. learned Additional Public

¶32

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DVC ._^{case was filed based on false allegations. However,the trial Court}

¶34

granted relief in favor of the petitioner in that case. Aggrieved by certain orders in the DVC, the petitioner filed an appeal with a delay of 64 days and sought condonation of the delay through Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2024. That petition was dismissed as "not pressed". Subsequently, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2024 seeking restoration of Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2024. The appellate Court allowed the petition but directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the arrears to the respondent No.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by this condition, submitting that he does not have sufficient financial resources, earns only Rs.30,000 per month, and is unable to pay 50ok of the arrezrs. He, therefore, prays that the condition imposed by the appellate Court be modified.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that since the petition in Cr.M.P.No.95 of 2024 was dismissed as^"not pressed", the appellate Court should not have allowed the application at all. He further submitted that the petitioner in the DVC case, who is the wife of the petitioner herein, is suffering without receiving any financial support and has to take care of their two school-going children. He argued that the^pendency of the appeal is causing her undue hardship and, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

¶36

I

¶37

\ i

¶38

Perused the record.

¶39

lt is pe(inent to note that the respondent No.l herein is wife. Unless the appeal is decided on merits, none of the parties would be at peace. ln order to facilitate the petitioner herein to exercise his right of appeal and to ensure substantial^justice, the Criminal Appeal is to be decided on merits.

¶40

D.V.C.No.3 ot 2016 was disposed o'f on 27.'10.2023 awarding an amount of Rs.80001 towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal along with a petition to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal, vide Crl.M.P.No,95 of 2024. The said Crl.M.P.No.95 oI 2024 was dismissed as "not pressed". Subsequently he filed Cd.M.P.No.623 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 9 seeking restoration of Crl.M.P.No.95 of 2024. The appellate Court allowed the said petition but imposed a condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the arrears to the respondent No.1. In spite of the orders dated 27.10.2023 passed in D.V.C., the respondent No.1 herein is not being paid the maintenance awarded under the said orders due to the inaction of the petitioner herein. Though he preferred an appeal with a delay, the appeal is not yet numbered, as the Crl.M.P filed for condonation of delay is

¶41

r

¶42

I I

¶43

not proved, for the reasons best known to him. ln the restoration application vide 623 of 2024, he simply says that it was not pressed due to inadverance

¶44

B. Considering the submissions ol both counsel, the payment of 5Oo/o of the arrears as directed by the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli is hereby reduced to 25o/o, to be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli is directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.95 o'f 2024 in Unregistered Crl.A.No. 2024 in D.V.C.No.3 of 2018, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the said receipt, after hearing both parties, on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶45