Section 126(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the exparte order = The husband filed Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the exparte order dated 01.02.2010 passed in M.C.No.17 of 2009.= the order impugned in the revision can be set aside subject to certain terms and conditions. 7. Accordingly, criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 in M.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor subject to the petitioner-husband depositing Rs.30,000/- within four weeks. On such deposit, the first respondent-wife is permitted to withdraw the same. Failing compliance of the condition, the order impugned in the revision shall hold good.

CRLRC 360 / 2013

CRLRCSR 34137 / 2012

PETITIONER RESPONDENT MADDEPALLY GANGADHAR @ PEDDA ABBANNA   VS MADDEPALLY LAXMI @ POSANI & ANOTHER PET.ADV. : LAXMAN BATCHU RESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SUBJECT: U/s.125 Cr.P.C.maintenance matters DISTRICT:  NIZAMABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.360 of 2013

O R D E R:-

          This revision is directed against the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 in M.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C.

2.       The petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. The wife filed M.C.No.17 of 2009 claiming maintenance against the husband. The husband did not choose to enter appearance in the M.C. Thereupon, the wife got herself examined as PW.1. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the wife, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m by order dated 01.02.2010.

  The husband filed Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the exparte order dated 01.02.2010 passed in M.C.No.17 of 2009.  The said Crl.M.P. ended in dismissal for non-prosecution.  Hence this revision case.

          3.       Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-wife and perused the order impugned in the revision.

          4.       It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner-husband that the petitioner-husband could not pursue Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 due to ill-health. A further contention has been advanced that the petitioner-husband is prepared to deposit part of the arrears of the maintenance to prove his bonafides.

          5.       Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-wife supported the order impugned in the revision.  Learned counsel would contend that as on this day, petitioner has to pay Rs.60,000/-towards arrears of maintenance.

6.       Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order impugned in the revision can be set aside subject to certain terms and conditions. 

7.       Accordingly, criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the order dated 06.07.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.13 of 2012 in M.C.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor subject to the petitioner-husband depositing Rs.30,000/- within four weeks.  On such deposit, the first respondent-wife is permitted to withdraw the same.  Failing compliance of the condition, the order impugned in the revision shall hold good.

_________________________

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J

26^th February, 2013.

Note:

Issue copy within three days

B/o

Sr/vjl

[