APHC010627952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9727/2023 Between: SRI UDUKALA RAJU, S/O CHANDRAYYA, AGED 52 YRS, D.NO.3-225, MANGAMARIPETA, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHAI. 2. SMT UDUALA VARA LAKSHMI, W/O UDUKALA RAJU, AGED 46 YRS, D.NO.4-92, NERELLAVALASA COLONY, BHEEMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. UDUKALA VENKATA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, D/O UDUKALA RAJU, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E.,2ND RESPONDENT SMT UDUALA VARA LAK ,D.NP..4-92,NERELLAVALASA COLONY BHEEMUNIPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the Order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2 2023 in M.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Court of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. 2. Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are the wife and minor son of the Petitioner filed M.C.No.16 of 2022 before the trial Court seeking maintenance. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has to give evidence and she cannot delegate nor give any authorization to depose evidence on her behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that, the learned trial Judge, vide impugned order permitted one Udukala Bhaskar, who is the son of Respondent No.2 to represent Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein in the main case, on the ground that Respondent No.2 has been suffering from mental disease and Respondent No.3 is a minor. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order is not tenable under law and prayed to set aside the same. 3. None appeared for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 5. As seen from the impugned order, during pendency of M.C.No.16 of 2022 filed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking to grant maintenance at Rs.14,000/- and Rs.6,000/- per month respectively, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Crl.M.P.No.1187 of 2023 under Rule 38 of Civil Rules of Practice praying to permit one Udakala Bhaskar, who is the son of Respondent No.2 to represent them in the M.C. Inspite of service of notice, the Petitioner herein had not filed any counter in the said 3 petition. The learned trial Judge, having considered the submission that Respondent No.2 has been suffering from mental disease and Respondent No.3 being a minor, are unable to depose evidence, allowed the petition permitting Udukala Bhaskar, to represent them in the main case. 6. Being the son of Petitioner and Respondent No.2 herein, said Udukala Bhaskar definitely would have close acquaintance with the family affairs and he is competent to represent the matter on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:12.08.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.9727 of 2023 Dt.12.08.2025 Dinesh