Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/914/2019 of DASARI VENKATA NAGENDRA PRASAD Vs Dasari Siva Lakshmi on 9 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 914/2019 AND I.A. No.01 of 2019 Between: 1. DASARI VENKATA NAGENDRA
APHC010249802019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
AND
I.A. No.01 of 2019
Between:
1. DASARI VENKATA NAGENDRA PRASAD, S/OLATE RAMA KRISHNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O CHITTIPROLU VILLAGE, GHANTASALA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. DASARI SIVA LAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA NAGENDRA PRASAD, D/O
KOLLIPARA BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O.
KOLAVENNU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. DASARI PHANEENDRA, S/O VENKATA NAGENDRA PRASAD, ALA
10 YEARS, (BEING A MINOR REP.BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN)
3. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF A.P., AMARAVATI
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to issue a non bailable warrant against the petitioner. Then the petitioner approached his council and he knows the due amount which was passed by the court bellow i.e Crl. Mp No 1164/2016
Dr. VJP, J
in MC No 248/2014, praying the court to cancel/ recall the warrant issued against the petitioner. But to the misfortune of the petitioner the Honble court was not pleased to recall the same. The petitioner is a small cause farmer and if he is arrested by the police, his family reputation will be at stake.
IA NO: 1 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 574 days in filing the above appeal and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2019
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Cr1.M.P.No.1164/2016 in M.C.No. 248 OF 2014
Family court cum IV Additional District Judge Vijayawada Krishna District till the disposal of this petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KOLUSU RAVIKIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BOPPANA TAPASWI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3. LEGAL AID
The Court made the following:
Dr. VJP, J
AND
I.A. No.01 of 2019
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:
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set-aside the impugned Non-Bailable Warrant, issued against the petitioner herein vide order dated 18.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.1164 of 2016 in M.C.No.248 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Family Court, Vijayawada.
2. Heard Sri Kolusu Ravi Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.B. Tapaswi, learned legal aid counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance.
3. This petition is filed seeking condone delay of 574 days in preferring this revision against the impugned order of maintenance granted to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the wife and minor son of the petitioner, on the file of the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, dated 13.10.2016.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the husband, had handed over the case file to his advocate before the Trial Court with instructions to entrust the matter to a High Court advocate. However, the
Dr. VJP, J
case bundle was misplaced in the advocate’s office. It is further submitted that the bundle was traced only recently, and due to the said reason, the delay occurred in filing the present petition.
5. Having heard the submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner, who is the husband of respondent No. 1 in the maintenance case, remained ex parte.
6. The learned Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence of PW1 (the wife), coupled with documents Exs. P1 to P5, granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000/- per month to the minor son, apart from Rs. 25,000/- per annum towards the educational expenses of the minor son, from the date of application.
7. Nothing has been placed before this Court to substantiate the petitioner’s contention for condone delay, except a vague plea that the case bundle was misplaced in the office of the learned counsel before the Trial Court. The affidavit filed by the petitioner further indicates that it is not his case that he was unaware of the proceedings in M.C. No. 248 of 2014. Despite receipt of notice, he did not choose to appear before the Trial Court to place his contentions on record.
8. In such circumstances, viewed from any angle, this Court finds no reason to condone the delay or to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order is a well-reasoned one.
Dr. VJP, J
9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, and consequently, the revision is also dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.04.2026. PBS
Dr. VJP, J
Dt.10.04.2026
PBS