IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7036 of 2009 Between: V.Subhash Chandra Reddy . .Petitioner And Smt.V.Shamantha Reddy and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri A.Ramesh learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. 2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in D.V.C. No.9 of 2008, dated 25.08.2009, whereby the trial Court dismissed the application to dispense with his presence, issued non bailable warrant and forfeited the right of cross examination of P.W-2. It is also incidentally endorsed that the costs ordered by the Court was not paid. 3) Irrespective of the past conduct of the petitioner in the proceedings before the trial Court, in order to test the bonafides of the petitioner, he has been directed to pay all the arrears of maintenance due as per the orders of the trial Court and accordingly the demand draft for Rs.36,000/- was delivered by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent before the Court on 22.09.2009. 4) Sri B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner also assures that the petitioner will positively cooperate with the further progress of the enquiry in D.V.C. No.9 of 2008, if he is given an opportunity to cross examine P.W-2 and participate in the further proceedings. The assurance by the learned counsel across the bar needs to be accepted and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent brought to notice that costs imposed earlier on two occasions were not so far paid. Under the circumstances, without going into the other issues raised in the Criminal Petition about the manner in which the impugned order was rendered, the petitioner can be provided an opportunity subject to appropriate terms to compensate the inconvenience caused to the 1st respondent. 5) Accordingly, the orders passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in D.V.C.No.9 of 2008, dated 25.08.2009 are set aside and the non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall be recalled. The said Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to appear before it and participate in the further proceedings in the case and if the petitioner wishes to recall P.W-2 for cross examination, he shall pay costs of Rs.1,500/- to the 1st respondent herein. If the petitioner so desires to be again represented by a special vakalat holder in the further proceedings of the case, he is at liberty to make a fresh application for the purpose before the trial Court, which the trial Court shall consider on merits in accordance with law. 6) The Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-09-2009 KSH