1 APHC010120292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 450/2019 Between: Ch Venkata Appa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Sho and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V N CHAKRAPANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MADHU BABU AKULA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner, who is the respondent in FCOP, seeking to set aside the Order dated 18.02.2019 passed in FCOP (MC) No.320 of 2017 on the file of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Additional Family Judge at Vijayawada. 2. The 2nd respondent herein filed FCOP (MC) No.320 of 2017 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. As per the Impugned Order dated 18.02.2019, the learned Family Judge allowed the petition, directing the petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent herein, from 2 the date of application. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred this Revision. 3. Today, when the matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties involved in the proceedings have compromised in FCOP No. 763 of 2017, which was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a divorce by mutual consent. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel submitted a copy of the order in FCOP No. 763 of 2017. 4. A perusal of the order in FCOP No. 763 of 2017 reveals that the learned Judge, Principal Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, allowed the petition by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners, solemnized on 21.05.1994. The 2nd petitioner (wife) has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as permanent alimony and is not entitled to any further maintenance from the 1st petitioner (husband) in the future. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the settlement between the parties, as referred to above, the cause for filing of this Revision does not survive. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. 6. In the light of the submission, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as cause does not survive. Consequently, the I.A.No.1 of 2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2019 are closed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 07.03.2025 MS 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.450 OF 2019 Date: 07.03.2025 MS