GUNJA RAJU Vs. LAKSHMI BHAGYA REKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the order, dated 16.12.2017 passed in M.P.No.1004 of 2017 in M.C.No.317 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-cum-Additional Family Court-cum-IX Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereunder the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex parte decretal order passed on 24.05.2016, subject to payment of Rs.75,000/- on or before 17.01.2018 and on further condition that the revision petitioner shall pay Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to his wife and son respectively towards interim maintenance till the disposal of the main case.

(2.) The facts in issue are that respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the son of the revision petitioner and they filed M.C.No.317 of 2015 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to each of them and Rs.5,000/- per month towards treatment and medical expenses of respondent No.2 (son). As the revision petitioner/husband failed to attend the Court, the trial Court set him ex parte and passed an ex parte order on 24.05.2016 in the said Maintenance Case by granting Rs.7,500/- and Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and son respectively. After receiving the salary attachment order, the revision petitioner filed the present M.P.No.1004 of 2017 in M.C.No.317 of 2015 to set aside ex parte decretal passed against him on 24.05.2016, stating that he had not received summons or notices and that without verifying service of summons on him, the trial Court set him ex parte. No counter has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein before the trial Court. After hearing both the Counsel, the trial Court allowed the said petition subject to payment of Rs.75,000/- on or before 17.01.2018 and on further condition that the revision petitioner shall pay Rs.4,000/- and Rs.3,000/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively towards interim maintenance till the disposal of the main case. Challenging the said condition, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner/husband.

(3.) Though counter was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Hence, heard learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3rd respondent-State and perused the record.