Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1460/2025 of Katragadda Pratap Kumar Vs Katragadda alias Bezawada Rajani Kumari on 19 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN / AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1460/2025 Between: KATRAGADDA PRATAP
APHC010677192025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2025
IN / AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1460/2025
Between:
KATRAGADDA PRATAP KUMAR, S/O.SESHAIAH, AGED 43
YEARS,
OCC:
RAILWAY
EMPLOYEE,
R/O.CHAVATAPALEM
VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDALPRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. KATRAGADDA ALIAS BEZAWADA RAJANI KUMARI, W/O.
PRATAP KUMARD/0. BEZAWADA SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED 41
YEARS,OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHAVATAPALEM VILLAGE, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATHI
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. NAGURU SIVA SAIKRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2026 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 09.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.354 of 2023 in M.C.No.48 of 2023 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 310 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri Gannavarapu Suryam, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Naguru Siva Sai Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, as the mother of the Petitioner was suffering from ill health and old age ailments, he could not contact his counsel to file the revision. As such, delay of 310 days in filing the revision has occurred, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence, prayed to condone the same. It is further submitted that interim maintenance granted to Respondent No.1 / wife is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel would submit that Respondent No.1 / Wife has landed properties including agricultural land and the same has been suppressed before the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the explanation offered by the Petitioner for causing inordinate delay of 310 days in filing the revision, is not tenable. The learned trial Judge, after considering the material on record, has rightly granted interim maintenance. As such, there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the said order. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Considering the submissions made, it is not the case that the Petitioner has not been pursuing the matter in person. He has engaged a counsel, who is very much available on record. The Petitioner cannot plead ignorance of law and file this revision with an inordinate delay of 310 days. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that no convincing or satisfactory explanation has been offered to condone the delay. The Petitioner has failed to establish that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control. In the absence of any bona fide and sufficient cause, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner.
7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to raise all theirs contentions before the trial Court and the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without granting any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.04.2026 Dinesh
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2025 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1460 / 2025
Dt.20.04.2026
Dinesh