Telangana High Court
CRLRC/968/2025 of Smt. S.Swetha Reddy Vs Dr.S.Rajesh Reddy on 18 December 2025
Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS agg1ev-ed by^t!9 "iJ"r ait"o 06 10 2025 passed in crt.M.p.No.237l2O25 in Criminat SR No. 10050 ot ZOZS on the file of thd Court of the Metropolrtan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally. [ 32s7 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 and 442 of BNSS agg1ev-ed by^t!9
"iJ"r ait"o 06 10 2025 passed in crt.M.p.No.237l2O25 in Criminat SR No. 10050
ot ZOZS on the file of thd Court of the Metropolrtan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally.
[ 32s7 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISIO N CASE NO: 968 OF 2025
Between:
AND
1. Smt. S.Swetha Reddy, Wo.Dr.S.Rajesh Reddy, Aged about 39 years- .Occ'
Doctor. R/o.H.No.8-2-695/RJ4, Road No.'12, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad - 34
2. Master S.Aarav Reddy, S/o. Dr.S.Rajesh Reddy, Ageq aboul 10 years, -Occ'
- Stroent, ilo.H.No.8-2'-6951R14, Roab No 12, B'anjaia Hills, Hyderabad -34'
3. Master S.Aarnav Reddy, S/o. Dr.S.Rajesh Reddy, Aged about 10 years,,Occ.
- Stuoent, R6. H.No.8-2-695/R/4, Road No 12 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad -34
Petition6rs 2 and 3 are Rep by Petitioner No. 1 who is their mother
...PETITIONERS
Dr.S.Raiesh Reddv, S/o.S.Sadanand Reddy, Aged about 4l years Occ Ooctor, hlo.ptot N6.296/A, MLA Colony. Road No.12 Banjara Hrlls, Hyderabad.
S.sadanand Reddy, S/o. S.Bata Krishna Reddy, Ag9-d about 68.years, Occ'
Se*i6e R/o.Plot Nio.296/A, MLA Colony, Road No.'12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
Smt.S. Parameshwari, Wo. S. Sadanand Reddy, Aged about 64 years, Occ Housewite, R/o. Plot No.296/A, MLA Colony, Road No. 1 2' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
S. Raiiv Reddv. S/o.S.Sadanand Reddy, Aged about 38 y Rlo.Flot No.2'96lA, MLA Colony, Road No.12. Banjara Hi
Counsel for the Petitioner :
SRl. SK FAKRUDDIN ALI
Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
ears, Occ. Service,
lls, Hyderabad.
..,RESPONDENTS
-re%z
/
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI. \NGANA
AT HYDERABAD
.THE HONOI'RABLE.SMT.- JI.,STIG E JTJWADI ;RIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.968 of 2c25
Between:
18 DECEMBER.2025
...-r!l:r!r;'i4
S.Swetha Reddy and two others
P: itioners
AND
Dr. S.Rajesh Reddy and three others
Re; rondents
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.
:ORDER:
Challenging the order, dated 06.10 202{; passed in Crl lVl P.No237 of 2025 in Criminal S.R.No.10050 c,1 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, the petitior _.rs filed this Criminal Revision Case.
2. Heard [/lr. SK.Fakruddin Ali, learned corrr sel for the petitioners. Perused the record
3. Case of the petitioners is that they have filed _ V.C.No.322 of 2022 against the respondents, along with an applic; tion seeking interim monthly maintenance i.e., Crl.lV.p.No.242 of 2023, which was partly allowed, directing respondent No.1 to pa,l Rs.50,000/_ each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and also directed to p,i y arrears of maintenance. However, the relief sought in respect tf petitioner No.1 was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an I ppeal along with Crl.tvl.P.No.237 of 2Q25 under Section 5 of the lndian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of (136) days in preferring the D.V.C. Appeal. However, the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 06.10.2025, dismissed the application filed for delay condonation on the ground that the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of the petitioners' Aggrieved further, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed'
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the delay occurredduetothetimetakeninobtainingcertifiedcopies,the intervening summer vacation, financial constraints' and the change of Advocate due to non-cooperation of the earlier counsel' and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate lt is further Submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the reasons put forth by the petitioners for the delay and mechanically dismissed the application filed for condonation of delay. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order, dated 06.10'2025'
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners explaining the cause for the delay in filing the t to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to contest the matter w
6. ln view of the above, the impugned ortl rr' dated 06.10.2025 passed in Crl.M P No.237 of 2025 i^ Criminal S.R No 10050 of 2025 by the learned Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, is hereby set aside and the delay of (1:) i) days in filing the Appeal ts condoned. The Office of the Cour: cf learned Sessions Judge at Hyderabad is directed to number re Appeal
- iorttrwiih. so as to enable the learned Sessions Judge o Proceed with the matter
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allot'v:d Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed To, TPKPSL Yv SDI. NI; IAND .\ RA SEKHAR REGISTRAR iScrrou oFFlcER /ffRUE COPYII ,1, rhe Metroporitan Sessions rudsid,iJ::fi"li#' $tl[tl lY"''nn"n" " LY"1":l#s?tji.'J::'-"il"'-ALrAdvocate(oPU() Two CD Coptes
HIGH COURT DATED: 1811212025
ORDER
HES (, T4 r-) , it 2illi' ) C + * CRLRC.No.968 of 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE IS ALLC WED ^c co\ "l>
C\,- ,, j-ii\a'" 7a\'' t