IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.179, 261, 262 & 263 of 2010 DATE:16.07.2010 CRL.R.C.No.179 of 2010 Between: Vikas Jain, …… Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent And Mamatha Jain and another …..Respondents CRL.R.C.No.261 of 2010 Between: Vikas Jain, …… Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent And Mamatha Jain and another …..Respondents CRL.R.C.No.262 of 2010 Between: Vikas Jain, …… Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent And Mamatha Jain and another …..Respondents CRL.R.C.No.263 of 2010 Between: Vikas Jain, …… Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent And Mamatha Jain and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.179, 261, 262 & 263 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The revision petitioner is quondam husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed M.C. No.248 of 2008 in the lower Court i.e., before the Judge, Family Court, Guntur claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the petitioner. The petitioner is a resident of New York, U.S.A. After several attempts, notice in M.C. No.248 of 2008 could be served on the petitioner through courier service. Thereafter, the petitioner was set exparte in M.C. No.248 of 2008 and after considering material on record, the lower Court granted maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the 1st respondent as against her claim of Rs.20,000/- per month. To set aside the exparte decree, the petitioner’s father as special power of attorney holder of the petitioner filed three petitions in the lower Court; firstly for condoning delay of 33 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order, (2) to set aside exparte order of maintenance passed by the lower Court on 29.06.2009 and (3) to permit him to engage counsel as per Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. While so, the 1st respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.24 of 2010 in M.C. No.248 of 2008 in the lower Court for direction to the petitioner to deposit entire arrears of maintenance. The lower Court by the impugned common order dated 12.01.2010 dismissed all three petitions filed by the petitioner and allowed the petition filed by the 1st respondent directing the petitioner to pay arrears of maintenance by 03.02.2010. As against to the said common order, the petitioner filed these four criminal revision petitions. 2) There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that the 1st respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.160 of 2008 in the lower Court under Section 13(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage between the parties on the plea that the petitioner is impotent and that the lower Court passed exparte order of divorce between the parties. The petitioner remained un-married even after obtaining divorce. 3) Except the fact that the petitioner being in U.S.A, no other ground is put forward by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 33 days or for setting aside the exparte order of maintenance. In the absence plea and proof of sufficient cause, neither the delay can be condoned nor the exparte order of maintenance can be set aside. 4) The contention of the petitioner that he is ready to take back the 1st respondent cannot be taken into consideration because there is no subsistence of marriage between the parties after decree of divorce passed in H.M.O.P No.160 of 2008. In view of the decree granting divorce between the parties, the 1st respondent is entitled to reside separately and claim maintenance to her from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5) The only ground which the petitioner can contest in M.C. No.248 of 2008 is with regard to his income and quantum of maintenance. Admittedly the petitioner was resident of U.S.A and was in employment in U.S.A. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner was doing a small job in U.S.A. According to the petitioner, he incurred 56,000 USD for his post graduate studies in engineering in U.S.A and the petitioner’s father incurred education loan of Rs.4.50 lakhs and it is still outstanding. When the petitioner spent 56,000 USD for his post graduation in U.S.A, it cannot be said that amount of Rs.9,000/- per month awarded by the lower Court is in any way excessive or onerous. The lower Court did not award the entire claim of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife, but only awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month to her towards maintenance. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner came away from U.S.A and he is now in India. From the respective contentions of the parties and the averments in the petitions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any sufficient cause either for condoning the delay or for setting aside the exparte order of maintenance, since the said order was passed after notice to the petitioner. It cannot be believed that the petitioner’s father came to know about the exparte order of maintenance when some relation of him informed the same to him. Having regard to totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the common order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 6) In the result, all the four criminal revision petitions are dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 16, 2010 KSH