APHC010284382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3548] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1585/2026 Between: 1. KURAPATI AKSHAY KUMAR, S/O SUDHEER KUMAR, R/O. PLOT NO. 34, INDIRANAGAR COLONY, SHIVARAMPALLI JAGIR, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD. CURRENTLY RESIDING IN GERMANY, REP. BY THE GPA HOLDER AND HIS FATHER, SUDHEER KUMAR S/O KL RAGHU RAM. 2. KURAPATI (YERRAMSETTI) GAYATHRI, W/O SUDHEER KUMAR, R/O. PLOT NO. 34, INDIRANAGAR COLONY, SHIVARAMPALLI JAGIR, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3. KURAPATI SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O KL RAGHU RAM, R/O. PLOT NO. 34, INDIRANAGAR COLONY, SHIVARAMPALLI JAGIR, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD. 4. KURAPATI ABHINAY KUMAR, S/O SUDHEER KUMAR, R/O. PLOT NO. 34, INDIRANAGAR COLONY, SHIVARAMPALLI JAGIR, RAJENDRANAGAR, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. LINGAM LALITHA, W/o Kurapati Akshay Kumar, D/o Jeevan Kumar, R. D.no. 44-15-79/A, Thatichetlapalem, Visakhapatnam- 530 004 ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above-named Revision Petitioners respectfully present this 2 GTK,J C.R.P.No.1585 of 2026 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the inaction of the learned Dt Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in keeping pending the Interlocutory Application vide DDR No.7285 of 2025 in D.V.C. No.36 of 2024, filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 7 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and simultaneously proceeding with the application for interim maintenance in Crl. M.P. No. 160 of 2025, filed by the respondent, without first adjudicating the petitioners application under Order IX Rule 7, thereby causing serious prejudice and denial of fair opportunity to the petitioners, for the following, among other IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copies and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 leased to stay all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.36 of 2024 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHAITANYA PALISETTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CHAITANYA PALISETTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 GTK,J C.R.P.No.1585 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Heard, Sri Chaitanya Palisetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in pursuance to the ex parte order in D.V.C.No.36 of 2024, dated 13.03.2025, a petition is filed bearing Crl.M.P. No.____ of 2025 in D.V.C.No.36 of 2024 indicating the reasons why he could not be present on 13.03.2025 due to the delay caused by the Railways which ought to have come by 07:30 A.M. has arrived at 11:30 A.M. (Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam). The said petition is filed, on 12.05.2025 and since the date of filing of the said petition kept unnumbered and reasons are not known to the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter was again called on 08.05.2026 in which the petition is allowed and posted the matter for orders again to be called, on 28.05.2026. The said order also indicates that the Crl.M.P. which is filed by the petitioners herein is pending. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the matter is posted for orders and the Court is aware of the pendency of the petition. As the matter is posted to 28.05.2026 and prayed this Court to direct the Court below to number the Crl.M.P. which is filed for restoration. 4. In that pursuit the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in C.R.P.(MD) No.3215 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) No.16573 of 2023, dated 07.12.2023, wherein a similar issue was dealt by the Court after following the Full Bench judgment in the case of Arun Daniel Vs. Suganya 1, wherein the Court has held that the impugned order of returning the M.P. in the D.V.C. petition for seeking set aside is held as unsustainable and set aside the said order. 1 2022 SCC Online Madras 5435 4 GTK,J C.R.P.No.1585 of 2026 5. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioners is that the Court below has kept the Crl.M.P. pending without numbering the said Crl.M.P. and posted the D.V.C. for orders, which is contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. 6. Since urgency is expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, notice to the respondent is dispensed with. 7. In view of the guided principles laid down by the Full Bench in Arun Daniel’s case (supra 1), the Court below shall abstain from passing orders, on 28.05.2026 to which date the matter is posted under the caption for orders, until passing Order in Crl.M.P.No.____ of 2025 in D.V.C.No.36 of 2024. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J Date:22.05.2026 KPV 5 GTK,J C.R.P.No.1585 of 2026 23 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1585 of 2026 22.05.2026 KPV