ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri, in Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 in M.C.No.49 of 2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at Malkajgiri, in M.C. No. 49 of 2018, was dismissed on 10.10.2024. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 08.04.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted to 21.04.2025. Again, when the matter was listed on 09.06.2025, there was no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 19.06.2025. On 31.12.2025, this Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner, but there was no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3. To grant one final opportunity, the matter was posted to 06.01.2026 under the caption “for orders”. Despite the matter being listed under the said caption, there is no representation for respondent Nos.2 and 3, either in physical mode or virtual mode. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 3. Heard Mr.V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed M.C.No.49 of 2018 before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, seeking maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month along with costs. He further submitted that the petitioner did not receive summons in the said M.C. as he was not residing at the address mentioned therein. Consequently, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Family Court and was set ex-parte and the learned Family Court passed an ex-parte order dated 10.09.2018, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.3 per month. 4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the said ex-parte order only through a legal notice issued by respondent No.2 through her counsel on 30.10.2021. 4.1. He further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the said ex-parte order only through a legal notice issued by respondent No.2 through her counsel on 30.10.2021. Immediately thereafter, on 17.11.2021, the petitioner filed a petition vide S.R.No.3924 of 2021 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order within 30 days from the date of knowledge. The said petition was returned with some objections on 09.12.2021, and immediately on the same day, the petitioner re-submitted the petition after complying with the objections, whereupon it was assigned a new S.R.No.4189 of 2021. However, the learned Family Court refused to decide the said petition on the ground that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 seeking condonation of delay of 1075 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.09.2018. The learned Family Court, without properly appreciating the averments made therein, dismissed the said application on 10.10.2024. 4.2. He further submitted that even prior to filing of M.C.No.49 of 2018 by respondent Nos.2 and 3 the petitioner had filed F.C.O.P.No.1571 of 2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC and after conducting investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, and the said Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case as C.C.No.67 of 2016. Subsequently, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and agreed to withdraw F.C.O.P. and C.C.No.67 of 2016. Basing on the same, petitioner did not press F.C.O.P. and C.C.No.67 of 2016 was referred to Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat passed an award dated 26.02.2019. 4.3. He further submitted that respondent No.2 suppressed the fact of disposal of M.C.No.49 of 2018 at the time of entering into compromise or before the Lok Adalat. After the Lok Adalat award, respondent Nos.2 and 3 lived with the petitioner for about three months, after which respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house with respondent No.3 voluntarily. He also submitted that if one opportunity is given to the petitioner to contest the proceedings in M.C.No.49 of 2018, no prejudice will be caused to respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. After the Lok Adalat award, respondent Nos.2 and 3 lived with the petitioner for about three months, after which respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house with respondent No.3 voluntarily. He also submitted that if one opportunity is given to the petitioner to contest the proceedings in M.C.No.49 of 2018, no prejudice will be caused to respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner failed to furnish proper reasons for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1075 days and the learned Family Court rightly dismissed the application. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective submissions and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were husband and wife and respondent No.3 is their daughter. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed M.C.No.49 of 2018 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month in their favour, wherein the petitioner was set ex-parte and an order dated 10.09.2018 was passed, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.3, on the 10 th of every succeeding month from the month of September 2018. 7. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record a certified copy of the award and docket order dated 26.10.2018 and 26.02.2019 respectively in C.C.No.67 of 2016. After perusal of the same, it reveals that the petitioner and respondent No.2 have settled their disputes. Based on the said settlement, C.C.No.67 of 2016 was referred to the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat recorded the compromise and passed an award on 26.10.2018. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner did not press F.C.O.P.No.1571 of 2015. It further reveals that pursuant to the said award, petitioner and other accused were acquitted in C.C.No.67 of 2016 on 26.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically averred that subsequent to the above said orders, petitioner and respondent No.2 lived together for a period of three months, after which respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house, with respondent No.3. 8. It further reveals that pursuant to the said award, petitioner and other accused were acquitted in C.C.No.67 of 2016 on 26.02.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically averred that subsequent to the above said orders, petitioner and respondent No.2 lived together for a period of three months, after which respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house, with respondent No.3. 8. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as on the date of passing of the award by the Lok Adalat in C.C.No.67 of 2016 on 26.10.2018, respondent No.2 suppressed the fact of disposal of M.C.No.49 of 2018, wherein maintenance was awarded in their favour. The petitioner specifically averred in Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 that he came to know about the ex-parte order passed by the learned Family Court in M.C.No.49 of 2018 only on 30.10.2021, when he received a legal notice issued by respondent No.2 through her counsel. The petitioner further averred that he filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte order on 17.11.2021, vide S.R.No.3924 of 2021. Later the same was renumbered as S.R.No.4189 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application, namely Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022, invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of a delay of 1075 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.09.2018. However, the learned Family Court dismissed the said application on 10.10.2024 on the sole ground that the petitioner had not provided sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of 1075 days. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that he did not receive the summons in M.C.No.49 of 2018, as at the time of institution of the M.C., he was not residing at the address mentioned therein. 9. The record further discloses that this Court on 29.01.2025, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 in M.C.No.49 of 2018, dated 10.10.2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount as directed by the learned Family Court in M.C.No.49 of 2018 after deducting amount which was paid to respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of eight weeks from that date. In default the said order stands vacated. 10. In default the said order stands vacated. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the above said interim order of this Court the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.3,82,500/- on 13.03.2025 before the learned Family Court by way of cheque, and subsequently respondent Nos.2 and 3 withdrew the said amount. 11. It is already stated supra that the specific case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not informed about granting maintenance order dated 10.09.2018 in M.C.No.49 of 2018, while entering into compromise in C.C.No.67 of 2016 or at the time of passing the award by the Lok Adalat and he did not receive the summons in M.C.No.49 of 2018 and he came to know the said order only after receiving legal notice issued by respondent No.2 on 30.10.2021. 12. It is well settled law that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive liberal consideration so as to advance the cause of justice. The aforesaid principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India , (2023) 10 SCC 531 and the decision rendered by the three-Judge Bench in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji , (1987) 2 SCC 107 was referred to with approval and in paragraph 41, it was held as under: “ 41. Having bestowed serious consideration to the rival contentions, we feel that the High Court's decision [Union of India v. Sheo Raj, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5511] to condone the delay on account of the first respondent's inability to present the appeal within time, for the reasons assigned therein, does not suffer from any error warranting interference. As the aforementioned judgments have shown, such an exercise of discretion does, at times, call for a liberal and justice-oriented approach by the courts, where certain leeway could be provided to the State. The hidden forces that are at work in preventing an appeal by the State being presented within the prescribed period of limitation so as not to allow a higher court to pronounce upon the legality and validity of an order of a lower court and thereby secure unholy gains, can hardly be ignored. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” 13. Impediments in the working of the grand scheme of governmental functions have to be removed by taking a pragmatic view on balancing of the competing interests.” 13. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri, in Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 in M.C.No.49 of 2018, is set aside and the delay of 1075 days in filing the application seeking set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.09.2018 is condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards costs to respondent Nos.2 and 3, and he shall pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3, from the date of filing of the application in M.C.No.49 of 2018 till date, after deducting the amounts which are paid/deposited by the petitioner, within a period of eight (08) weeks. On complying with the above conditions, the learned Family Court is directed to consider the set-aside application filed vide S.R.No.3924 of 2021, which was renumbered as S.R.No.4189 of 2021, after giving opportunity to both the parties in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, totalling Rs.10,000/- per month, on or before the 10 th day of every month, till the disposal of the above said application. 14. With the above said directions, the criminal petition is disposed of, accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.