APHC010422582010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1082/2010 Between: 1. BONKURI USHA, W/O BALA VENKATESWARLU, R/O D.NO.8-5-58, 6TH LANE, NEHRU NAGAR, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BONKURI BALA VENKATESWARLU THE STATE OF A P, S/O KOTESWARAO, X-RAY TECHNICIAN, GOVT. GENERAL HOSPITAL R/O D.NO.13-8-89/A, 7TH LANE, GUNTURVARITHOTA, GUNTUR. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 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 allow the revision case and set- aside the Order dated 12.03.2010 in M.C.No.58 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. Dist. Judge, Guntur, and direct the Court below to send the document to the competent authority to determine duty and penalty. IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1562 OF 2010 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 fix an early date for hearing of this Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1082 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/wife being aggrieved by the order dated 12.03.2010, passed in M.C.No.58 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the M.C. against petitioner/wife. 2. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife represented that he has no instructions from the party, this Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, to serve notice on the petitioner and record her statement. The report of the Secretary indicates that the whereabouts of the petitioner could not be known and as such her statement could not be recorded. 3. Despite the best efforts of this Court, the petitioner's statement could not be recorded. The petitioner also did not take steps to pursue the matter, and therefore, this Court issued notice to the petitioner owing to the petitioner not pursuing the matter. However, the notice could not be served. As a result, the Court is unable to proceed further without proper representation from both sides. 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: 14.08.2025 M K K