TEJAVATH LAKSHMI BAI v. TEJAVATH SHIVA NAIK @ SHIVULU & ANOTHER
CRLRC/817/2012 · 2025-04-02
Y Lakshmana Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38697 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38697 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010756042012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 817/2012 Between: Tejavath Lakshmi Bai ...PETITIONER AND Tejavath Shiva Naik Shivulu Another and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. B CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision case has been filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Macherla in dismissing the M.C. No.42 of 2011 for default and liberty may be given to the petitioner for filing fresh Maintenance Case (M.C.) before the appropriate court, seeking for grant of maintenance against the respondent No.1/ husband.
2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the revision case may be closed by granting such liberty.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo along with registered post covered with acknowledgement due stating that the respondent No.1 had received the legal notice.
4. On perusal of the acknowledgement, it contains the thumb impression of the respondent No.1.
5. Having received the notice, the respondent No.1 has neither engaged the counsel nor appeared before this Court at any point of time. Therefore, the request of the leaned counsel for the petitioner sounds reasonable and appropriate. Of course, the petitioner being the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1, has always got the right to file a maintenance case against the respondent No.1. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh maintenance case before the appropriate court having the jurisdiction for claiming maintenance as per the law and procedure established. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 02.04.2025 SCH
3
195
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 817/2012 02.04.2025
SCH