IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 of 2010 DATE:16.08.2010 Between: Shaik Khadar Hussain …… Petitioner And: Shaik Ushnara Begum and 2 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 of 2010 ORDER : This revision petition is filed by the husband questioning order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam in M.P.No.395 of 2009 in M.C. No.1012 of 2008 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C and refusing to set aside the exparte order of maintenance. 2) The petitioner is husband of the 1st respondent and father of minor 2nd respondent. There is no dispute between the parties about relationship. Both the parties are living separately. It is stated that the petitioner filed another petition in Bangalore Court for restitution of conjugal rights against the 1st respondent and it is stayed by the High Court of Karnataka. The 1st respondent also filed domestic violence case against the petitioner at Visakhapatnam and it is pending. The respondents 1 and 2 filed M.C. No.1012 of 2008 in the lower Court for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In spite of sending the notice by registered post to the petitioner’s address in M.C, the petitioner did not receive the same. Subsequently the lower Court is stated to have ordered paper publication of notice in ‘The Hindu’ English daily news paper. Thereafter the lower Court set the petitioner exparte in M.C. No.1012 of 2008 and passed order granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor child. After nine months of that order, the petitioner approached the lower Court to set aside the exparte order on the ground that no notices were served on him in the maintenance case. No doubt, filing of separate application to condone the delay is redundant because the petitioner can explain the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order in that petition itself. Surprisingly the petitioner received notice relating to enforcement petition of the maintenance order from the lower Court. When the lower Court sent notice to the same address of the petitioner in maintenance case, he did not receive. Having regard to the pendency of several proceedings between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner played game of ‘hide and seek’ and purposely did not receive notice in M.C. in order to question order to be passed in it at a subsequent stage. There are absolutely no grounds to contend that the petitioner had no knowledge of filing of maintenance case by the respondents 1 and 2. Though the lower Court dismissed the petition on technical ground, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds for setting aside the exparte order of maintenance passed by the lower Court granting a pittance to respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the petitioner is employed in a software company at Bangalore. I do not find any valid reasons to set aside the order passed by the lower Court. 3) Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 16, 2010 KSH