Telangana High Court
Kothakota Srinivas vs Kothakota Latha Srilatha on 3 November, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.606 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the
order dated 08.12.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.43 of 2020 by the
learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad District.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed
an application under Section 127 of the Criminal Rules of
Practice seeking condonation of delay of 795 days in filing a
Criminal Revision against the ex parte order dated
15.06.2017 passed in M.C. No.14 of 2016, wherein the trial
Court had granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each
to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein. The petitioner earlier filed
a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in
Crl.M.P.No.1457 of 2018 to condone delay of 444 days,
which was dismissed on 13.01.2020. The respondent
opposed the present petition, contending that the petitioner
intentionally avoided contesting the case and failed to offer
sufficient cause for such prolonged delay. Upon hearing
both sides and perusing the record, vide order dated
SKS,J
08.12.2021 allowed the petitioner holding that the petitioner
was aware of the ex parte order and had already paid
Rs.1,08,000/- towards maintenance, but delayed filing the
revision. However, taking a lenient view, the trial Court
allowed the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall
pay half of the arrears of maintenance amounting to
Rs.1,44,000/- within one month, failing which the petition
would stand cancelled.
3. Heard Smt. V. Preeti Reddy, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri B. Akash
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 and Smt. Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
trial Court failed to properly appreciate the financial and
personal circumstances of the petitioner while directing
payment of arrears of Rs.1,44,000/-. He further submitted
that the petitioner was unemployed and had no source of
income, and during the pandemic period he was not in a
position to pay such a huge amount. He contended that the
SKS,J
father of the petitioner was hospitalized and later passed
away, causing heavy medical expenses, and that the
petitioner himself suffered from jaundice and underwent
treatment at NIMS and later through Ayurvedic methods
and that the respondent was employed as a teacher drawing
a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and was receiving single
women pension, facts which were suppressed before the
Court. He further contended that the respondent, being
educated and financially independent, acted with mala fide
intent by filing false complaints and affidavits to harass and
extract money from the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed the
Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing
this criminal revision case.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner stating that the trial Court rightly passed
the impugned order and there is no illegality in the order of
the trial Court and there are no merits in the criminal
revision case. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the
criminal revision case.
SKS,J
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the main contention raised by the
petitioner was that though the trial Court allowed the
petition for condonation of delay, it imposed a condition
directing him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-, which was
excessive and beyond his financial capacity. It was further
contended that the order under challenge was an ex parte
order and the delay in filing the petition to set aside the
same was not deliberate. The petitioner submitted that he
had already deposited Rs.1,40,000/- towards maintenance
and was unable to deposit any further amount.
7. On the other hand, It is the specific contention of the
learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that even the present
revision petition was filed with delay and that no separate
petition for condonation of delay had been filed, rendering
the revision not maintainable. He also relied upon the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v.
Ramesh Chander and Another 1 , Mahabir Singh v.
(2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460
SKS,J
Subhash and Others 2 , and State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Singhara Singh and Others 3 in support of his submissions.
8. On consideration of the rival submissions, it is evident
that the trial Court, while allowing the condonation petition,
imposed a condition directing the petitioner to deposit
Rs.1,44,000/-, which appears to be onerous and
unreasonable in the circumstances of the case. When the
delay is condoned, the Court cannot impose an excessive
financial burden that defeats the purpose of granting such
relief. Though the counsel for the respondent submitted
that the petition is not maintainable due to the delay in
filing the revision and that no application has been filed to
condone the same, and he also relied upon several
judgments. However, the present revision has been filed
only to the extent of seeking a reduction in the amount to be
paid for compliance with the condition imposed by the trial
court. It is also noted that the petitioner has already
deposited a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- towards the maintenance
amount. Having regard to the same, and in order to afford
(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 358
1963 SCC OnLine SC 23
SKS,J
an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the main matter
on merits, this Court is inclined to modify the condition
imposed by the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed
of, reducing the condition imposed by the trial Court to the
extent of the amount already deposited by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall be permitted to contest the set aside
petition.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 03.11.2025
SAI
SKS,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.606 of 2024
Date: 03.11.2025
SAI
