Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

A.Avinash, vs State Of Telangna,
2022 Latest Caselaw 714 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 714 Tel
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2022

Telangana High Court
A.Avinash, vs State Of Telangna, on 17 February, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2333 OF 2018

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public

Prosecutor.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order

dated 15-12-2017 in Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2017 in M.C.No.39 of

2013 passed by the Judge Family Court at Khammam District.

The petitioner herein is husband and the 2nd respondent is wife.

The 2nd respondent has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C

vide M.C.No.39 of 2013 seeking maintenance from the petitioner

herein. In the said M.C., the petitioner herein has filed an

application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C vide Crl.M.P.No.433 of

2017 seeking to receive certain documents and mark them as

exhibits i.e., "1. Mobile Phone. 2. Positive photographs (5)

of the petitioner in M.C., obtained from face book account of

the petitioner. 3. Memorandum of Understanding between

the petitioner and the respondent. 4. Mutual divorce filed

under Section 13(B) at Vijayawada Family Court between

petitioner and respondent." The petitioner herein sought to

file the said documents on the ground that there is conversation

of the 2nd respondent in the said mobile phone which is useful for

the purpose of deciding the present case. The photographs and

the Memorandum of Understanding and copy of the mutual

divorce application are also relevance for the purpose of deciding

the present application. The said petition was resisted by the 2nd

respondent stating that in an application filed under Section 125

of Cr.P.C, receiving and marking of mobile phone, photographs,

is not required and the Court below has to consider the paying

capacity of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

3. Learned Family Court- Cum - VI Additional District

Judge, Khammam vide impugned order dated 27.10.2017 partly

dismissed the said application on the ground that petitioner

herein failed to explain the reasons for not filing the said memory

card and other documents along with the counter. The petitioner

herein has also filed the said application after a lapse of four

years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the

very application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C and the Court

below erred in partly allowing the said application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that M.C.,

is posted for judgment.

6. As stated above, the 2nd respondent had filed the said

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in the year 2013

whereas the petitioner herein had filed the above said

Crl.M.P.No.433 of 2017 seeking to receive certain documents for

the purpose of marking and to mark the same as exhibits on

behalf of the petitioner, in the year 2017. As perusal of the

petition filed under Section 294 of Cr.P.C, petitioner has not

explained reasons much less satisfactory reasons for not filing of

the said documents in time along with counter and he has not

specifically mentioned any reasons and the relevancy of the said

documents in the said petition. It is an application filed under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C and it is of the year, 2013. According to

this Court, receiving of mobile phone and photographs is not

required in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court

has to consider the paying capacity of the parties. Except that,

other aspects cannot be gone into. Therefore, according to this

Court, the Court below rightly partly dismissed the application

filed by the petitioner vide impugned order by receiving mutual

divorce petition and Memorandum of Understanding, which is a

reasoned order and well founded.

7. Petitioner failed to make out a case to interfere with

the findings of the Court below. Therefore, this Criminal Petition

is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 17.02.2022 dv

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter