THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 126 of 2010 Date: 01-02-2010 Between: Abdul Jabbar Khan @ Saleem Khan. - - - Petitioner And Smt. Bushra Begum @ Tabassum and two others.. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.126 OF 2010 ORDER: This Revision is directed against the order passed in M.P. No.970 of 2009 in M.C. No.134 of 2004, passed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge (Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge’), Hyderabad. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein is Respondent in M.C. No.134 of 2004. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners in M.C. No.134 of 2004. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 10-11-2004 allowed the said M.C. and directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) p.m. each to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein in the said M.C. from the date of application i.e. from 01-07-2004. Then, the Respondents herein filed M.P. No. 970 of 2009 in M.C. No.134 of 2004 on 06-07-2009 under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance claiming arrears from 01-07-2004 totally Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only). In that application notice was ordered and the docket order dated 22-09-2009 is as follows : “Due to declared holiday on 21-09-2009, petitioner absent. Postal cover returned back. Call on 27-10-2009”. The docket order dated 27-10-2009 is as follows : “Respondent called absent. Set exparte. Heard. Payment not made. Arrest and commit the respondent to prison for a period of eight (8) months. The detention commences from the date of arrest”. In pursuance of the said warrant, the petitioner was arrested on 26-12-2009 and since then the petitioner has been in Chanchalguda jail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondents herein cannot claim arrears from the year 2004 onwards and that they cannot claim maintenance for more than twelve months and therefore the petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.970 of 2009 is not maintainable. It is also submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner herein in Crl.M.P. No.970 of 2009 and this aspect was not considered by the lower Court. Challenging the impugned order dated 27-10-2009 made in Crl.M.P. No.970 of 2009 in M.C. No.134 of 2004, this Revision has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner herein has to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and also Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 as per order in M.C. No.134 of 2004 regularly from now onwards. The only point that arise for consideration is whether the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P. No.970 of 2009 in M.C. No.134 of 2004 dated 27-10- 2009 is liable to be set aside? Admittedly, the docket order dated 22-09-2009 shows that due to declaration of holiday on 21-09-2009, the petitioner was absent, the postal cover was verified and it was found to be returned. Thus, it is clear no notice was served on the Respondent therein as on 27-10-2009. The docket order dated 27-10-2009 does not show that any notice has been served on the respondent therein. It simply says that the Respondent called absent and he was set exparte. Since the docket order dated 27-10-2009 does not show the service of notice on petitioner, It is clear that no notice is served on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be illegal and accordingly the same is set aside. The petitioner herein shall be released forthwith. The learned Sessions Judge shall pass orders directing to release the petitioner forthwith. However, the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within ten (10) days from today and shall continue to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and also arrears at the rate of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) p.m. each to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 p.m. from now onwards and he may contest the M.P. No.970 of 2009 in M.C.No.134 of 2004 by filing counter. Till the necessary orders are passed in Crl.M.P. No.970 of 2009 in M.C. No.134 of 2004 with regard to the enforcement of arrears of maintenance amount, the interim arrangement made supra shall be in force. With these observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 01-02-2010. DSH