APHC010411982014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: of oni>| Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2014 in CrI.R.P.No. 32 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet. Between: Satuluri Singaiah, Christianpet, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. S/o. Punnaiah, Aged 59 Years R/o. East ■■.Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Satuluri Annamma W/o. Singaiah, Aged 51 Years, R/o. Gopalamvari village, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P. Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. ...Respondents !A NO: 1 OF 2014 (CRLRCMP r.T 2014) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the oircumstanoes s ated ,n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in CrI.R.P.No. 32 of 2013 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet on the file of the XIII dated 10-10-2014. jA NO: 1 OF 2015rCRLRCMP 970 OF 2Q1fi) Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 20.01.2015 Crl.RC.MP.NO.4386 of 2014 in Crl.RC.No.2632 of 2014 and dismiss the matter. passed in Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Manikyala Rao, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, Advocate Counsel for Respondent No.2: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. The Court made the following order: , APHC010411982014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT AMARAVATI • (Special Original Jurisdiction) . '"'FTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present the honourable SRI JUSTICE CRIMINAL RFViQ.r>M ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] FIVE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO 2632/2014 Between: PET, ...PETITIONER AND 1.SATULURI ANNAMMA VILLAGE, CHILAKALURIPET, 2. THE STATE OF A P, COURT. HYDERABAD. W/0 SINGAIAH, ■ . GUNTUR district, REPT. by its public prosecutor R/0. GOPALAMVARI , HIGH ...RESPONDENT(S): oircumsTances sttedTnlh^affidrvitlT' that in the Case, the High CourtCL plait al'lorr". 'I on the file dated 10-10- jANO. lOF ?ni4(CRLRr:MP 4386 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 in the affidavit filed i suspend the order CPC praying that in the circumstance«5 Qtatori in support of the petition, the High Court Pj. ,. . . CrI.RP.No. 32 of 2013 District and Sessions Judge. Narasaraopet iA NO: 1 OF yniSfCRLRCMP 07n may be pleased to on the file of the XIII Additional , dated 10-10-2014. OF 2015 2 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 to vacate the interim stay order dt.20.01.2015 passed in Crl.RC.MP.NO.4386 of 2014 in Crl.RC.No.2632 of 2014 and dismiss the matter in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAMA KOTESWARA RAO TADIPARTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI 2.- 3. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/respondent under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the Order dated 10.10.2014 in Cri.R.P.No.32 of 2013 passed by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, (for short, ‘the 1®' appellate Court’) which was filed against the Order dated 11.02.2013 in M.C.No.39 of 2011 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet (for short, ‘the trial Court’), whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by thg 1®* respondent herein under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking for maintenance. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2013, which directed the payment of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- by setting aside the order passed in M.C. No. 39 of 2011. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1®* respondent reported 1. 2. 3. 3 ready. It seems that the petitioner is not showing any interest to prosecute the revision. 4. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non prosecution. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-VDIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To District and Sessions Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur 1. The XI11 Additional District. 2. One CC to Sri K.Manikyala Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, Advocate [OPUC] y^ne CC to Sri Rama Koteswara Rao Tadiparthi, Advocate.[OPUC] Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Two CC’s to the Public 6. The Section Officer 7. Three CD Copies 9 ■ : Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. GPC vna HIGH COURT DATED: 05/08/2025 / ORDER CRLRC NO. 2632 OF 2014 ^ anoh^^ g 11 SEP 2025 . Current Section ^ m¥ DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE FOR NON-PROSECUTION