HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5456 OF 2009 ORDER:- Heard Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the third respondent. No notice is being ordered to respondents 1 and 2 as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. M.C.No.37 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, was ordered on 15.10.2004 and the order shows that the same has been passed in the presence of Sri G. Subba Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent therein. The present petitioner, who is the respondent therein contested the matter by filing a counter. But para 5 of the order shows that as he was absent on 11.10.2004 and as there was no representation on his behalf, he was set ex parte, on which the petition was ordered on consideration of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 therein. The criminal petition itself shows that subsequent to the said order, the wife was filing applications for enforcement of the said order from time to time, which the present petitioner was facing and he ultimately, filed a Criminal Revision Petition along with Crl.M.P.No.292 of 2009 to condone the delay of 1619 days in filing the revision (1587 days as stated in the petition?) and the Court of Session dismissed the same on 11.06.2009 holding that the alleged absence of legal advice to him to file a revision against the orders passed in the maintenance case and the subsequent engagement of another counsel by the petitioner do not provide sufficient cause for condoning such abnormal delay. The learned Sessions Judge noted that several miscellaneous petitions were filed for recovery of arrears of maintenance, some of which were pending and the petitioner did not pay a single pie to the respondents for more than 4 ½ years. Due to the inference that the petitioner filed the petition only to evade the payment of the maintenance, the Court of Session considered it to be not a fit case to be considered even on imposition of costs. When the petitioner obviously entered appearance in M.C.No.37 of 2002 through a counsel and contested the same by filing a counter, even if he was absent on 11.10.2004 for any compelling reason, he should have, as a normal person of ordinary reasonable prudence, enquired within a reasonable time as to what happened to the case and should have taken steps if any adverse orders are passed against him so as to set aside the same, if he is entitled to do so. He had obviously not done that and also had not taken any steps either to have the order set aside or to have it challenged in revision, in spite of a series of petitions for enforcement of the said order awarding maintenance. The claim that he did not file a revision in the absence of a legal advice cannot provide any justification for condoning such an abnormal delay and as to when another counsel was engaged, who advised to file the revision is also not specified. The learned Sessions Judge cannot be considered to be improper or unjust in dismissing the petition for condonation of the delay. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th July, 2009 bud