Karandeep Singh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1849 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

   CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2573 and 2570 of 2018


COMMON ORDER

     Since the facts of the case issue involved are one of the

same in both these Criminal Revision cases, both these Criminal

revision Cases are being taken up together and are being disposed

by way of common order.


           Crl.R.C.No.2570     of    2018     is     filed     by   the

petitioner/husband,   challenging   the   order    dated     06.07.2018

passed in M.C.No.112 of 2014 by the XVI Additional District and

Sessions Judge's Court-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge's Court-cum-III Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District

at Malkajgiri whereby, the application filed under Section 125 of

Cr.P.C by the respondent No.2 and 3 herein/wife and minor

daughter for grant of maintenance @ Rs.70,000/- per month,

apart from Rs.20,000/- towards legal expenses, was allowed

awarding an amount of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- to the

respondent No.1 and 2 herein respectively towards monthly

maintenance, apart from other directions.

The Criminal Revision Case No.2573 of 2018 is filed by

the petitioner/husband, challenging the order dated 06.07.2018

passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 in M.C.No.112 of 2014 by the XVI 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court-cum-XVI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court-cum-III Additional Family

Court, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri whereby, the subject

Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 filed by the petitioner/husband under

Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the ex parte order dated

27.02.2018 and to afford him an opportunity to contest the

matter, was dismissed.

2. I have heard submissions of Sri I.V. Radhakrishna

Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband in both these

Criminal Revision Cases, Ms. Apporva Gokhale representing

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.R.C.No.2570

of 2018 and respondent No.2 in Crl.R.C.No.2573 of 2018 and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband in both

these criminal Revision cases would submit that the Court below

ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner/husband to

put-forth his case before passing the impugned orders. The Court

below has given a go bye to the said principle and awarded

maintenance in favor of the wife and minor daughter which is

wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. There is no procedure

either in civil or criminal law that the Court has power to set any

person ex-parte. The Court below has misunderstood the said 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

principle. The Court has power to proceed ex-parte, but does not

have power to set any person ex-parte, as held by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Sangram Singh V/s Election Tribunal, kotah1.

The Court below ought to have passed a conditional order before

passing the orders in favour of the wife and minor daughter. The

petitioner/husband never deserted his wife and minor daughter. By

passing the impugned order, the petitioner/father was deprived of

his legal right to contest the subject cases and putforth his

evidence and bring the real facts to the notice of the Court below.

Though no case for grant of maintenance is made out against the

petitioner/accused, the Court below granted exorbitant amount

towards maintenance, apart from other directions, which is

erroneous and ultimately prayed to allow both the Criminal

Revision Cases as prayed for.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Crl.RC.No.2570 of 2018 and respondent

No.2 is Crl.RC.No.2573 of 2018 would submit that though a

reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner/father to

putforth his case, he did not come forward to do so and hence he

was set ex parte by the Court below. Further, the Court below,

after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case in great

(1 AIR 1955 SC 425) 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

detail and after considering the oral and documentary evidence of

record, rightly granted maintenance to the wife and minor

daughter apart from other directions. It is the obligation and

bounden duty of every father is to maintain his wife and children.

The order under challenge does not warrant any interference by

this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397

and 401 of Cr.P.C and ultimately prayed to confirm the orders

under challenge and dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that

arises for determination in both these Criminal Revision Cases are

as follows:

"Whether the order of the even date.06.07.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 in M.C.No.112 of 2014 (impugned in Crl.Rc.No.2573 of 2018) and M.C.No.112 of 2014 (impugned in Crl.Rc.No.2507 of 2018) by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court-cum-III Additional Family Court, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri , are legally sustainable?"

POINT:

6. The material placed on record reveals that the

petitioner in both these Criminal Revision Cases is the husband

and the father of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively in Criminal

Revision Case No.2570 of 2018. The wife and her minor daughter

filed the subject M.C.No.112 of 2014 against the 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

petitioner/husband seeking maintenance for both of them.

However, the petitioner/husband was set exparte on 27.02.2018 in

the subject Maintenance Case. Subsequently, the

petitioner/husband filed the Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 in said

maintenance case under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C to set aside the

ex-parte order dated 27.02.2018 and to give him an opportunity to

contest the matter. However, the Court below vide judgment dated

06.07.2018, dismissed the subject application holding that there

are no grounds to invoke Section 126 of Cr.P.C. On the same date,

the Court below also disposed of the subject M.C.No.112 of 2014

granting maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the wife and Rs.20,000/-

to the minor daughter from 04.02.2017, apart from other

directions.

7. While it is the case of the petitioner/husband that he

was diligent and his absence on 27.02.2018 before the Court

below was neither wilfull nor intentional, it is the case of the wife

and minor daughter that in spite of affording reasonable

opportunity, the petitioner/husband failed to pursue the matter

diligently and hence, the subject ex-parte order came to be

passed.

8. Be that as it is. Admittedly, the orders impugned in

both these Criminal Revision Cases are ex-parte orders. In a 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that litigation

should not be terminated by default, either of the petitioner or of

the respondent and that adjudication of litigation has to be done

on merits, as far as possible. In the instant case, there is record to

show that the petitioner was set ex parte on 27.02.2018 and ex

parte orders dated 06.07.2018 were passed. The matter arises

from a maintenance case. It may be true that the wife and minor

daughter have got a strong case in their favour, however, that it

does not mean that the relief sought by them can be granted

without affording an opportunity to the petitioner/father to put

forth his defence. In my considered view, justice demands that an

opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner/father to contest

the case and putforth his defence. As noticed above, the cause of

justice requires that as far as possible, adjudication of a matter

should be done on merits. An obligation is cast on the Court to

follow the cardinal principle of "audi alteram partem" and give an

opportunity to the parties before making an order referring the

dispute.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court deems it

appropriate to set aside the order under challenge in both these

Criminal Revision Cases and remit both the matters to the Court

below for disposal of the subject M.C.No.112 of 2014 and also 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 in M.C.No.112 of 2014, afresh, after

affording opportunity to both the parties, which course, in the

considered opinion of this Court, would meet the ends of justice.

10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinions on the

merits of the matter, the impugned orders of the even date

06.07.2018 passed in M.C.No.112 of 2014 (impugned in

Crl.R.C.No.2570 of 2018) and Crl.M.P.No.60 of 2018 in M.C.No.112

of 2014 (impugned in Crl.R.C.No.2573 of 2018) by the XVI

Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court-cum-XVI Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge's Court-cum-III Additional Family

Court, Rangareddy District are set aside. Consequently,

M.C.No.112 of 2014 stands restored to the file of the Court below.

The Court below is directed to dispose of the subject M.C.No.112

of 2014 afresh, after giving opportunity to both the parties. Since,

the subject maintenance case is sufficiently old, the Court below

shall dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

not later than three (03) months from the receipt of a copy of this

common order.

11. With the above observations/directions, both these

Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of.

8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these both Criminal

Revision Cases shall stand closed.

                                _________________________
                                  JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J


28.04.2023
dgr
 9               Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
    CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018
                           10                  Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                  CRl.R.C.Nos.2570 and 2573 of 2018




      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI




          Crl.R.C. Nos. 2570 and 2573 of 2018




                   Date:28.04.2023

dgr