IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 OF 2010 Between: Nalluri Suman … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner while sitting pretty in the United States of America wants to run the show in India through an advocate. 2. The second respondent/wife filed D.V.C.No.30 of 2009 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for reliefs of maintenance, compensation etc. Notice was served on the petitioner in Domestic Violence Case by way of affixture in his last known address. Since the petitioner did not appear either in person or through advocate, naturally the Magistrate was proceeding with the case in his absence. At that stage, one advocate filed a petition before the Magistrate to set aside ex parte order passed against the petitioner. It was not supported by an affidavit of the party. The advocate himself signed the petition. It is not as if the petitioner signed the petition, which is counter- signed by the advocate. It is for the party to plead the circumstances under which he could not appear in Court and establish the same. The advocate cannot plead for the party. The advocate can only plead legal aspects on behalf of the party and not on factual aspects. It is for the party to allege and prove the circumstances in which he was unable to attend the Court. In this case, the petitioner failed to do so. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner had knowledge of notice of the proceedings and fedex report, dated 26.03.2010, was received by him on 30.03.2010. In spite of it, he did not take any prompt proceedings by filing proper application. Both the Courts below rightly negatived contention of the petitioner. 4. Simply because several crores of rupees are claimed in the Domestic Violence Case by the second respondent against the petitioner, the Magistrate is not going to grant the entire claim, but would grant only reasonable amount of maintenance to the second respondent and her child and also reasonable amount of compensation, if any, entitled by her. The Magistrate will pass an order on merits and not as prayed for. 5. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 31, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1523 OF 2010 August 31, 2010