APHC010535512014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION Between: 1. G. NACER BASHA, TAMILNADU, ABOUT 35 YEARS, RIO. DOOR NO.32A" SAIDAPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE. 1. STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. 2. S NOOR JHAN BEGUM, 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, 3. N SAMEER PASHA, YEARS, 4. N SUFIYAN NACER, S/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 1 V2 YEARS (THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, I.E., 2ND RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.8/156 1, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.) Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal revision case by setting aside the order, dated 19.06.2014 made in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, YSR District, 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1623/2014 G. NACER BASHA, TAMILNADU, S/O. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RIO. DOOR NO.32A" EAST JONES ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU STATE. ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD 3 OTHRS, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. S NOOR JHAN BEGUM, EX.W/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, N SAMEER PASHA, S/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 4 N SUFIYAN NACER, S/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 1 V2 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, I.E., 2ND RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.8/156 1, PRAKASH NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, Y.S.R.DISTRICT.) ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal revision case by setting aside the order, dated 19.06.2014 made in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, YSR District, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO S/O. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE, AGED EAST JONES ROAD, ...PETITIONER 3 OTHRS, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC EX.W/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT S/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 4 N SUFIYAN NACER, S/O. G.NACEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 1 V2 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER, I.E., 2ND RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO.8/156- ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal revision case by setting aside the order, dated 19.06.2014 made in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, YSR District, 2 against the orders dated 10.01.2014, made in CRl.M.P.No.2414 of 2013 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014 (CRLRCMP 2661 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order, dated 19.06.2014 made in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa, Y.S.R.District against the orders, dated 10.01.2014 made in Crl.M.P.No.2414 of 2013 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, YSR District, pending disposal fo the above Criminal Revision Case, petitioner will be put to grave and irreraparable loss Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. CHETLURU SREENIVAS The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/husband challenging the order dated 19.06.2014 passed in Crl.A.No.41 of 2014 in Crl.M.P.No.2414 of 2013 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’). 2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in this Criminal Revision Case. 3. It is evident from the record that respondents 2 to 4 initially filed Crl.M.P.No.2414 of 2013 in D.V.C.No.5 of 2013, seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner before the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, 3 Kadapa. Upon considering the material on record and hearing both parties, the learned Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month each to respondents 3 and 4 herein, along with ₹10,000 each per annum towards their educational expenses, recognizing their constitutional rights, additionally, ₹1,000 per month was awarded to each for medical expenses. The learned Magistrate also granted ₹3,000 per month as interim maintenance to the 2nd respondent herein, effective from January 2014. 4. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.41 of 2014. Upon considering the material on record and hearing both parties, the 1st Appellate Court allowed the appeal and modified the maintenance. It awarded ₹3,000 per month each to respondents 2 to 4 herein towards maintenance. In addition, ₹10,000 per annum each was granted to respondents 3 and 4 herein towards their educational and medical expenses. The modified order was made effective from January 2014. 5. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the 1st Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.41 of 2014, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.1623 of 2014. 6. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent/State, submits that, according to the status report obtained from the E-Courts portal, D.V.C.No.5 of 2013 was withdrawn from the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, and transferred to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Kadapa. The case was subsequently renumbered as D.V.C.No.32 of 2018. As per the status report, D.V.C.No.32 of 2018 was disposed of on 17.04.2019, directing the petitioner herein to pay ₹5,000 per month to the 2nd respondent herein and ₹4,000 per month each to respondents 3 and 4 herein towards maintenance; additionally, the petitioner herein was directed to pay ₹10,000 per annum each 4 to respondents 3 and 4 herein towards their educational expenses; the petitioner herein was further directed to provide the 2nd respondent herein with residential accommodation equal to what she had while residing with him or, in the alternative, to pay ₹5,000 per month towards the same; furthermore, the petitioner herein and his parents were directed to return the dowry amount of ₹10,00,000 within three months from the date of the order. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that, in view of the dismissal of the main D.V.C.No.32 of 2018, the present Criminal Revision directed against the interlocutory order passed in D.V.C., no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous. 9. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having regard to the fact that the very D.V.C., in which the impugned order was passed, already stands disposed, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for determination in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Date: 18.09.2025 S A K 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.1623 of 2014 Date: 18.09.2025 S A K 36