IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE => 1. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO ^MMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1522 OF 2017 o\v Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order and Decree dt 31.01.2011 in F.C.O.P No. 42/2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court cum Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. Between: 1. Penumatsa Vasundhara, W/o Neelakantha Bangar Raju years, Household duties, C/o Krishna Murthy Raju, D.No.27-37-4, APHB Colony Babametta, Viziangaram 2. Penumatsa Goutha Varma, S/o Neelakantha Bangar Raju aged about 40 R/o MIG 49, , 14 years being Minor, Represented by his mother Penumatsa Vasundhara Neelakantha Bangar Rciju, aged about 40 W/o years. Household duties C/o D.No.27-37-4,APHB Colony, K.Krishna Murthy Raju, R/o MIG 49 Babametta, Vizianagaram. ...Petitioners/Petitioners AND 1. Penumatsa Neelakantha Bangar Raju, S/o Late years. Junior Technical Officer, Sanyasiraju, aged 45 Panchayatraj, Nellimarala R/o Vangapallipeta Village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh:, Rep by its Public Prosecutor of AP., Hyderabad. High Court ...Respondents/Respondents i LA. NO: 2 OF 2Ql;2rCR8 RnsuiP jjQ; 2352 OF 201?) Petition under Section 48^ Cr P C stated in the afTida.it filed in support of the petition, the High may )e pleased lo grant interim maintenance to the prayed for in F.C.(:).ip,imo.42 of 2010 minthi '""T" 'owards onthly maintenance pending the disposal of the above Crl.R.C. Counsel for the Petitioners: praying that in the petitioners as at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Srnt,, T V Sri Devi Counsel for the Respondent i^o I ". IVfs. SW Uma Devi representing Sri G Rama Gopal Counsel for the Responcleot Mo.2, Ws. P Akhila Naidu Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following fi APHC010756182012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] [I FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1522/2012 Between: Penumatsa Vasundhara and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Penumatsa Neelakantha Bangar Raju and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TVSRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ...RESPONDENT(S) 2.G RAMA GOPAL The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 31.01.2011 in F.C.O.P.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in dismissing the petition as a compromise was effected outside the Court. \ 2 Dr. YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l522of2012 Dated 02.05.2025 2. Ms. T.V. Sri Devi, the learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating grounds of the revision argued that the respondent No.1 filed counter and contested the matter. The petitioner No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and the respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.1 and four more witnesses were also examined. The learned Judge, after completion of the arguments for both sides, received a proposal from the respondent No.1 for compromise, therefore, both the parties were called and conciliations were held for three times in his chamber’s on 17.01.2011, 19.01.2011 and 28.01.2011, but the compromise was not materialized and petition was posted ‘for orders’ on 31.01.2011. The learned Judge erred in dismissing the petition as compromised, even though neither the petitioners nor their counsel, nor the respondent nor his counsel, reported the matter as compromised outside of the Court; the order of the learned Judge made the respondent No.1 under no obligation to pay maintenance to the petitioner, and it is urged to allow the revision case. 3. Per contra, Ms. M. Uma Devi, learned counsel, representing Sri. G.Rama Gopal, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, submits that the respondent No.1 gave some properties to the petitioner No.1. Therefore the matter was reported as settled out of the Court. Hence, the learned Judge passed an order on 31.01.2011 stating that a compromise was effected out of the Court and dismissed the petition as compromised. The grounds raised in the revision case are unsustainable, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 3 >5 ♦ Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.l522 of 2012 Dated 02.05.2025 Ms. P.Akila Naidu, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, also submits that the version of the respondent No.1 cannot believed, because the docket proceedings and the order of the learned Trial Court is a sacrosanct and it has to be given due weightage, because, without the parties submitting to the learned Court that they had settled the matter out of the Court, the learned Court would not have passed such an order, and it is urged to dismiss the petition. 4. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in F.C.O.P.No.42 of 2010, dated 31.01.2011, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 7. In this case the petitioner No.2 has become major. The age of the petitioner No.1 is 53 years and the age of the respondent No.1 is 57 years. 8. 9. The learned Trial Court, on 31.01.2011, dismissed the petition as compromised outside of the Court, as there was a representation for both sides to that effect. The order of the learned Judge has to be given due weightage. Unless and until, the parties submit before the learned Judge that the case may be dismissed as they settled the disput^out of \ 4 Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.l522 of 2012 Dated 02.05.2025 the Court, the learned Judge would not have recorded the same and dismissed the case. The docket proceedings and orders are to be considered sacrosanct. In Madapuram Maddileti Naidu v. State of A.P this Court in Tr. CrI. P.No.180 of 2014 and batch held 20.10.2014 that the docket proceedings are sacrosanct and unchallengeable. They could not speak falsehood. Nothing was going to be achieved by the learned Judge in dismissing the matter as compromised, when the case was inquired thoroughly by examining the parties and heard the arguments of both sides. The grounds of revision are unsustainable, as there were no material irregularities in the order passed by the learned Judge, and there is no flagrant violation of justice. Therefore, the revision case is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. on 10. As a sequel. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed Sd/-V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIoVr^FICER To, 1. The Family Court Judge curn Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 2. One CC to Smt. T V Sri Devi Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies SAM RAM \ f •■‘t \ HIGH COURT % \ DATED:02/05/202S ORDER CRLRC.Mo.1S22 of 2012 DISMISSING THE CRLRC