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 / 2013CRLRCSR 34137 / 2012
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
MADDEPALLY GANGADHAR @ PEDDA ABBANNA  VSMADDEPALLY LAXMI @ POSANI & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : LAXMAN BATCHURESP.ADV. : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SUBJECT: U/s.125 Cr.P.C.maintenance mattersDISTRICT:  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
26th February, 2013.
Note:
Issue copy within three days
B/o
Sr/vjl
[

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.