IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2014 Between:
Smt.Naila Tabassum . REVISION PETITIONER And State, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision Petitioner against the Order dated 11.06.2010 in Criminal Revision Petition No.18/2009 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and where under the learned District Judge allowed the revision petition which was filed against the maintenance order dated 07.08.2006 passed in M.C.No.17/2005 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.
I have heard the revision petitioner appeared in person and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.
The revision petitioner filed M.C.No.17/2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar seeking maintenance to her and her son from the 2nd respondent herein and the same was allowed granting maintenance @Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- to the petitioner and her son respectively. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No.18/2009 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.
On the date of hearing of the criminal revision petition, the revision petitioner herein was absent. The learned District Judge, under the impugned order, allowed the criminal revision petition holding that the revision petitioner herein is a divorced wife of the 2nd respondent herein and hence she is not entitled for any maintenance.
The order impugned obviously appears to have been passed without considering the material facts and evidence available on record. Further, the revision petitioner herein was not heard by the learned District Judge though a criminal revision petition can be disposed of on merits.
From the order impugned it appears that the material facts and evidence have not been considered properly and a cryptic order was passed. If the order impugned is allowed to stand, I am of the considered opinion, it would result in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in Criminal Revision Petition No.18/2009 is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the learned V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar for disposal of the matter afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 23.01.2014 Dsr