APHC010073862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.155 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:-1 [3584] Satyavarapu Kavitha ...Appellant Vs. Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri K. Sai Teja representing Sri Y. Narapa Reddy Advocate for respondents : Sri G. Seena Kumar (R-1), Learned Deputy Solicitor General (R-2 & R-3). CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 8th July 2026 LISA GILL, CJ. Prayer in this appeal is for setting aside order dated 04.02.2026 in Writ Petition No.2269 of 2026 passed by learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition filed by respondent No.1/writ petitioner has been allowed and Look Out Circular (L.O.C.) issued against him has been set aside. 2. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed W.P.No.2269 of 2026 for setting aside L.O.C. issued against him in connection with Crime No.77 of 2025 of Mahila Urban Police Station, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate registered for offences punishable under Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 498-A I.P.C.) and 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.155 of 2026 Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. He pleaded that he was working as an Electrical Technician in Emirate Global Aluminium Dubai and had married one Satyavarapu Kavitha on 14.02.2021. They were blessed with a child but unfortunately, his wife filed a case in D.V.C.No.21 of 2024 on the file of learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class – cum – VII Additional Senior Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner filed F.C.O.P.No.699 of 2024 seeking divorce and his wife filed F.C.O.P.No.1553 of 2025 for maintenance before learned Additional Judge, Family Court-II, Visakhapatnam. On 15.04.2025, his wife filed Crime No.77 of 2025 on the file of Mahila Urban Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He appeared before Mahila Police Station on 26.04.2025 and was enlarged on bail and returned to Dubai on 28.04.2025. Police filed charge sheet in the above crime, which was numbered as C.C.No.2753 of 2025 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. It is further pleaded that F.C.O.P.No.1553 of 2025 was posted to 17.01.2026. He applied for leave and arrived to Visakhapatnam Airport from Abu Dhabi on 14.01.2026. He was apprehended at the Airport on the ground that L.O.C. was issued against him and later, he was released on furnishing sureties. He pleaded that he had to report to duty on 09.02.2026 and in case L.O.C. is not set aside, he would lose his job at Dubai, which would be of no benefit to any of the parties. 3. Learned Single Bench, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found issuance of L.O.C. to be unjustifiable to the given facts and 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.155 of 2026 circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the same was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal has been filed by appellant/wife. 4. It is urged that appellant was not even impleaded as a party though she was a necessary party, as it is at her instance that the F.I.R. was registered. It is further contended that there is every possibility that respondent No.1/writ petitioner would not join the proceedings before the trial Court thus causing great prejudice to her. Setting aside of L.O.C. by learned Single Bench it is claimed is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner opposes the appeal while challenging maintainability thereof. It is submitted that writ petitioner has been appearing before learned trial Court and undertakes to do so on each and every date and hence, dismissal of appeal is sought. 6. We have heard learned counsel for parties but do not find any ground to cause interference at this stage. At the outset, it is to be noted that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana and others1, present appeal is not maintainable. 7. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellant that relief claimed by writ petitioner was completely civil in nature and therefore, would not be within the ambit of judgment in Ram Kishan Fauji’s case (cited supra). Controversy, as held, clearly has a criminal flavour 1 [2017 (5) SCC 533] 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.155 of 2026 and it cannot be said that matter would not be covered by Ram Kishan Fauji’s case (cited supra). We have also taken note of fact that it is not denied by learned counsel for appellant that as of now, writ petitioner is appearing before learned trial Court on each and every date. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances held above, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J AMD Whether the order is Speaking/Reasoned : Yes / No Whether the order is Reportable : Yes / No 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.No.155 of 2026 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL No.155 of 2026 Dt:08.07.2026 AMD