Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.V.Subba Rao Alias K.V.Subba Rao vs Bathina Wrongly Mentioned As As Konka In ... on 4 September, 2019
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2209 OF 2017
ORDER:
1. Challenging the order, dated 25.03.2015, in M.C.No.10 of 2013, passed by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, at Vijayawada, granting maintenance to the respondent/petitioner @ Rs.7000/- per month from the date of order, this Crl.R.C is filed.
2. It is to be noted that the present petitioner remained ex parte in M.C.No.10 of 2013.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner while giving reasons for the petitioner being set ex parte would submit that in M.C.No.10 of 2013 the respondent/petitioner has given the address of both the parties as Door No.30-20-12, Nehru Street, Seetaramapuram, Vijayawada. In fact, the petitioner/respondent is residing in a different address i.e., Door No.41-8-22 of Mantadavari Street, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. In that view of the matter, the petitioner had no occasion to know about the respondent's filing M.C and the Court's issuance of notice to him. Therefore, he remained ex parte which is without his UDPR,J Crl.R.C.No..2209 of 2017 2 knowledge. He therefore, prayed to set aside the ex parte order and grant him an opportunity to contest the M.C.
5. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner being an advocate would have filed a petition under Section 126(3) of Cr.P.C to set aside the ex parte order before the Court below. Instead, he avoided filing the same and directly filed the Crl.R.C in this Court.
6. As can be seen from the copy of M.C, the same address is mentioned for both parties. Therefore, I find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this Crl.R.C is allowed setting aside the order, dated 25.03.2015 in M.C.No.10 of 2013 on the condition of petitioner depositing 3/4th of the maintenance amount accrued till date, within two (02) months from the date of this order. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to file his counter and contest the matter. In case, the petitioner failed to make the deposit as stated supra, this order shall be deemed cancelled.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
________________________ U.DURGAPRASAD RAO, J Date: 04.09.2019 MS UDPR,J Crl.R.C.No..2209 of 2017 3 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2209 OF 2017 Date. 04.09.2019 MS