Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13636 (AP)

SMT. PUVVADA NAGA KALPANA, VISAKHAPATNAM v. PUVVADA SRINIVASA RAO, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER

CRLRC/1636/2009 · 2025-08-12

T Mallikarjuna Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010164912009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1636/2009 Between: 1. SMT. PUVVADA NAGA KALPANA, VISAKHAPATNAM, W/O. SRINIVASA RO PRESENTLY RESIDING WITH HER PARENTS AT D.NO. 6-15-7 C(UPSTAIRS), EAST POINT COLONY, CHINNA WALTAIR, ...PETITIONER AND 1. PUVVADA SRINIVASA RAO BAPATLA GUNTUR DISTRICT AND ANOTHER, S/O. SATYANARAYANA, HINDU R/O. OPP: REDDY HOSTEL, JAMEDARPETA, RAILPETA, UPPARAPALEM, BAPATLA, 2. STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this Criminal Revision Case to this Honorable Court against the Common Order as made in M.C.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, at Visakhapatnam dated 05-05-2009. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 26618 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C A R SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. P KRISHNA PRAKASH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1636 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the orders passed in M.C.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. 2. When the matter is coming under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, none appeared on both sides. On 06.08.2025, this Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to get ready for submission of their arguments. 3. It seems that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non prosecution. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 13.08.2025 M K K