Dismissed¶¶65

Cheekati Rambabu v. Cheekati Sunitha and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2025CRLRC/1024/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLRC No.1024/2014, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao, decided 04.08.2025. Cheekati Rambabu (husband) v. Cheekati Sunitha and two minor daughters and State of A.P. Revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against Family Court, Visakhapatnam interim maintenance order dated 21.11.2013 (I.A.No.656/2013 in FCOP No.1030/2013) granting Rs.3,000/- each. DLSA report: notices returned un-served ('no such person at that address'); petitioner absent and non-cooperative; revision dismissed for non-prosecution; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous applications (delay condonation under S.151 CPC; stay under S.482 CrPC) closed. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Service of notice on the petitioner could not be effected despite the best efforts made by the Court. ¶¶64

Cheekati Rambabu Vs Cheekati Sunitha and 3 Others — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010321952014

¶2

tN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

honourable SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1024 HF on^iA

¶7

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of CrPC, aggrieved by the order of the Family court, Viskhapatnam in IA.No.656/2013 in FCOP.No. 1030/2013 dated 21-11-2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Cheekati Rambabu, S/o.Sreenivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Working as Electrician, Grade CME Department, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Residing at C/o. Seshu Babu, HIG-I, B-1, S-1 A.S.Residency Vinaynagar, VUDA Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. .

¶10

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶11

AND

¶12

Cheekati Sunitha, W/o.Rambabu, [ Hindu, aged about 36 years, R/o.Flat

¶13

No.5, B.R.Complex, D.No.15-15-121 J, Mahranipeta, Near Supreme Hotels

¶14

Visakhapatnam.

¶15

Cheekati Venkata Satya Sai Anila, D/o.Rambabu, Hindu, aged about 14

¶16

years Student of 9th Class, R/o.Flat No. 5, B.R.Complex, D.No.15-15-121,

¶17

Mahranipeta, Near Supreme Hotels Visakhapatnam.

¶18

V*-

¶19

Cheekati Jayasree, D/o.Rambabu, Hindu, aged 10 years, studying 5*^ class, R/o.Flat No.5, B.R.Complex, D.No.15-15-121, Mahranipeta, Near Supreme Hotels, Visakhapatnam.

¶20

(Respondents No.2 & 3 being minors represented By their mother and natural guardian i.e., 1st Petitioner)

¶21

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2014rCRLRCMP 1614 OF 2014

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 21.11.2013 in IA.No.656/2013 in FCOP.No. 1030/2013 Family Court, Visakhapatnam

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.A.V.RATNAM

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No’s 1 to 3: SRI.J DILEEP KUMAR

¶28

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶29

[3369]

¶30

APHC010321952014

¶31

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶32

¶33

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶34

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶37

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1024/2014

¶38

Between:

¶39

1.CHEEKATI RAMBABU, S/O.SREENIVASA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ELECTRICIAN, GRADE [I, CME DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, RESIDING AT C/O.SESHU BABU, HIG-I, B-1, S-1 A.S.RESIDENCY VINAYNAGAR, VUDA COLONY, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

1.CHEEKATI SUNITHA AND 3 OTHERS, W/O.RAMBABU, HINDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶43

2.CHEEKATI VENKATA SATYA SAI ANILA, D/O.RAMBABU, HINDU AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS STUDENT OF 9TH CLASS,

¶44

3.CHEEKATI JAYASREE, D/O.RAMBABU, HINDU, AGED 10 YEARS, STUDYING 56 CLASS (RESPONDENTS N0.2 & 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E., 15 PETITIONER ) ALL ARE R/O.FLAT N0.5, B.R.COMPLEX, D.NO.15-15-121 MAHRANIPETA, NEAR SUPREME HOTELS, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶45

4.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD.

¶46

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶47

¶48

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto set aside the order of the Family court., Viskhapatnam in IA.No.656/2013 in FCOP NO 1030/2013 dt. 21-11-2013 and pass.

¶49

¶50

lA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 1152 OF 2014

¶51

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieased to condone the deiay of 41 days in fiiing the Revision against the order 21-112013 m IA.NO.656/2013 in FCOP.No.1030/2013 Family Court, Visakhapatnam and pass.

¶52

LA NO: 2 OF 2014rCRLRCMP 1R14 OF 2014

¶53

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 to stay the operation of the order dated 21.11.2013 in IA.No.656/2013 in FCOP.No. 1030/2013 Family Court, Visakhapatnam

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶55

1.SAVRATNAM

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶57

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶58

2.JDILEEP KUMAR

¶59

The Court made the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.’) against the Order dated 21.11.2013 passed in I.A.No.656 of 2013 in FCOP No.1030 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam (for^short the trial Court’). The learned trial Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to the petitioners therein towards maintenance. 2. A perusal of the proceedings of this Court reveals that directions were issued to the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority,

¶62

¶63

Visakhapatnam, to record the statements of the parties involved. Pursuant to this, the DLSA submitted its report, which indicates that the notice issued to the petitioner was returned as un-served, with an endorsement "no such person at that address." Similarly, the notice addressed to Respondent No.1 was also returned as un-served. As a result, the presence of both the petitioner and Respondent No.1 could not be secured.

¶64

Despite the best efforts made by this Court to serve notice on the petitioner, service could not be effected. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 656 of 2013, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- was granted to the petitioners therein. However, the petitioner herein has not shown any interest in prosecuting the revision.

¶65