THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1416 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 The respondent herein who is none other than the daughter of the petitioner filed M.C.No.226 of 2006 and the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Cases cum Additional Family Court cum XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for maintenance and accordingly by his order dated 04.02.2008 awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m from the date of petition and the petitioner shall continue to pay the said amount. The petitioner by filing Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2008 questioned the said order and this court on 19.03.2009 while ordering notice before admission to the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.713 of 2008 passed the following order: “Heard. There shall be interim stay of payment of 50% of the maintenance on condition of petitioner depositing the entire arrears within a period of four (4) weeks from today and on his continuing to pay the future maintenance at the same rate. Notice.” 2 The said amount of 50% could not be deposited within the said period of four weeks, but, however, was deposited by way of D.D. on 22.04.2009 with a delay of five days. However, as the said amount could not be deposited within the stipulated period of four weeks, the court below ordered arrest of the petitioner. The same was again questioned by filing two criminal revisions i.e. Crl.R.C.Nos.405 and 406 of 2010. As it was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount was deposited, this court while recording the said submission, disposed of those two revisions observing that the petitioner has to satisfy the court below with regard to the payment of arrears and in case, his claim for depositing of amounts as directed by this court is incorrect, the trial court shall issue fresh order for imprisonment for appropriate period. As the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period of four weeks, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.1189 of 2009 stating that the said order was not complied with. In the light of the said petition filed by the respondent, the petitioner approached this court and filed Crl.M.P.No.387 of 2010 seeking extension of time of five days and this court by its order dated 22.02.2010 condoned the said delay and extended the time by five more days. However, as the said fact i.e. extension of time was not brought to the notice of the court below, the court below passed an order on 31.07.2010 again sending the petitioner to jail. The said order is questioned in this revision. 3 This court is of the view that no notice need be given to the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 Apparently there are laches on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial court. When once there is an order directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount within four weeks he should have deposited the same within the said period of four weeks, which expired by 17.04.2009. Since the said order is not complied with, in my considered view, the trial court is justified in ordering arrest of the petitioner. Though four weeks time granted by this court was extended for five more days by order dated 22.02.2010, the petitioner’s counsel has not chosen to bring this particular fact to the notice of the court below. In the absence of bringing the said fact to its notice, the trial court is justified in ordering arrest of the petitioner and it cannot be said that the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the court below is erroneous. 5 However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had deposited the said amount on 22.04.2009 this court is of the view that the said order dated 31.07.2010 can be set aside. 6 Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the court below is hereby set aside. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall strictly comply with the order dated 19.03.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.713 of 2008 in Crl.R.C.No.519 of 2008 i.e. paying the future maintenance as per the said order. In case of his failure it is needless to observe that the respondent is at liberty to take appropriate steps. -------------- 06.09.2010 Kvsn