THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2442 OF 2010 DATED:19.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 15.02.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.698 of 2009 in unnumbered Crl.R.P. of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, was allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit half of the maintenance allowance before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam on or before 15.02.2010. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein is the wife of the petitioner. She filed M.C.No.78 of 2007 seeking maintenance. By order, dated 12.03.2009, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition along with an application in Crl.M.P.No.698 of 2009 to condone the delay of 92 days. The said application was allowed with the condition as stated above. 4. It is not disputed that in the meanwhile, 1st respondent has put the order in M.C.No.78 of 2009 in execution and the petitioner herein is also detained in civil prison for about one month for non payment of the maintenance as awarded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an agricultural coolie and he has no means to pay the maintenance or the arrears and therefore he suffered detention in civil prison for about one month. 6. Be that as it may, the learned Sessions Judge having condoned the delay of 92 days in filing the Revision Petition, could have given an opportunity for disposal of the Revision Petition on its merits instead of directing the petitioner to deposit half of the maintenance allowance inasmuch as the petitioner has not sought for any stay of the impugned order in the Maintenance Case. In the absence of any such stay, it is open to the 1st respondent to put the order in Maintenance Case into execution and recover the arrears in accordance with law. The condition imposed, while condoning the delay, is therefore considered to be rather onerous in the facts and circumstances of the present case, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner has already suffered detention in civil prison for one month and therefore the said condition is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the delay stands condoned and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits. 7. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th July, 2011. Tsy