Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/238/2024 of PYNENI SIVANNARAYANA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 6 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. PYNENI SIVANNARAYANA, S/O. PUIIA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY
APHC010117512024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. PYNENI SIVANNARA
PRESENTLY WORKI
16-272/A, PASUVUL
MEDIKONDURU MAN
1. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR, HIGH
2. SMT PYNENI USHA
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.3
KRISHNA NAGAR, GU
3. PYNENI LIKITHA,
STUDENT, R/O. D
LANE, KRISHNA NAG
4. PYNENI BHAVANA,
STUDENT, /O. D.NO
KRISHNA NAGAR, GU
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
allow this Criminal Revision
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 238/2024
AYANA, S/O. PUIIA RAO, AGED 42
NG AS WAITER IN THE HOTEL, R/O
LA HOSPITAL ROAD, PERECHERLA
NDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
...PE
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE
H COURT OF AP, AT AMARAVATHI.
A RANI, W/O. SIVANNARAYANA,
3-1-304, VARALAKSHMI BHAVAN, 8T
UNTUR.
D/O. SIVANNARAYAN AGED 17
D.NO.3-1-304, VARALAKSHMI BHAV
GAR, GUNTUR
D/O. SIVANNARAYANA, AGED 16
O.3-1-304, VARALAKSHMI BHAVAN, 8T
UNTUR
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased tomay be
n Case and set aside the Order dated 20
RATAPA
2 YEARS,
O. D.N0.7-
VILLAGE,
TITIONER
E PUBLIC
AGED 38
TH LANE,
7 YEARS.
VAN, 8TH
6 YEARS,
TH LANE,
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
pleased to
0-04- 2023
passed in Crl.MP.No.105 of 2023 in FCOP.No.7 of 2021, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur District, Guntur, consequently allow the said Crl.MP.No.105 of 2023 as prayed for, and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to condone 225 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the Order dated 20-04-2023
passed the delay of in Crl.MP.No.105 of 2023 in FCOP.No.7 of 2021, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur District, Guntur, and to pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order dated 26-08- 2022 passed in FCOP.No.7 of 2021, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur District, Guntur, pending disnosal of the main Criminal Revision Case, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.GUNDAVARAPU PADMAVALLI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 238 of 2024
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:
No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter and decide the issue on merits.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. (corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), seeking to set aside the order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.105 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No.07 of 2021 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur, whereby the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to condone the delay of 188 days in filing the petition under Section 126 Cr.P.C., was dismissed.
3. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 225 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.
4. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the delay petition, is that the certified copies of the impugned orders were misplaced during travel and subsequently he suffered from jaundice and was advised bed rest for a considerable period. After recovery, he applied for certified copies and filed the present revision.
5. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the explanation offered does not constitute “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay. The petitioner has not demonstrated bona fide diligence in pursuing the remedy. Except a bald assertion and a medical certificate, no convincing material is placed before this Court to justify the inordinate delay of 225 days.
6. Even on merits, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. The record reveals that the respondents filed F.C.O.P. No.07 of 2021 seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the Court granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each. The petitioner, though initially appeared before the Court and participated in the proceedings, failed to file counter and remained absent, resulting in his being set ex-parte and an order passed on 26.08.2022.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 188 days in filing an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order. The learned Judge, Family Court, upon consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said petition holding that no sufficient cause was shown.
8. The Family Court, in its order, has rightly observed that the petitioner failed to produce any material to substantiate his plea that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Court. No medical records were filed to show the illness of his parents, nor were specific details furnished. The explanation offered was vague and unsupported by evidence.
9. This Court does not find any illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur. The reasons assigned by the petitioner are neither convincing nor sufficient. The conduct of the petitioner indicates lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter, this Court is not inclined either to condone the delay or to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned Family Court during the course of enquiry. The learned trial Judge shall decide the matter independently, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the F.C.O.P. No.07 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, as the case pertains to the year 2021. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:07.03.2026 KKV
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 238/2024
Dt.07.03.2026
KKV