Dismissed¶30

Mithipati Rama Subba Rao, Usa., v. Kum.Mithipati Mahati Lakshmi, Visakapatnam & Anr, Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Aug 2025CRLRC/1140/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Criminal Revision Case No.1140/2015; dismissed for non-prosecution; maintenance of minor child Rs.30,000 p.m. from 26.03.2013 until marriage; FCOP No.371 of 2013, Additional Family Court Visakhapatnam; Sections 397/401 CrPC; warrant request not considered; petitioner abroad (USA), counsel had no instructions; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous petitions closed; single judge T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.; decided 04.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non-prosecution, the matter having been pending for more than ten years with the petitioner neither providing instructions to his counsel nor appearing before the Court. ¶29

Mithipati Rama Subba Rao, Usa., Vs Kum.Mithipati Mahati Lakshmi, Visakapatnam & Anr, Rep Pp. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

[3369]

APHC010180172015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1140/2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

MITHIPATI RAMA SUBBA RAO, USA.,, S/O M. S SURYANARAYANA, HINDHU, AGED 40 YEARS,AQUATECH, INTERNATIONAL, 1 FOUR COIN DRIVE, CANNONSBURG, WASHINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA 15317, USA.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

KUM MITHIPATI MAHATI LAKSHMI VISAKAPATNAM ANR REP PP, D/O M.SUBBA RAO, AGED 10 YEARS BEING MONOR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDINA DR. MITHIPATI VANI LAKSHMI, HINDHU, AGED 37 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 21, STATE BANK COLONY, PEDA WALTAIR, VISHAKAATNAM.

¶13

STATE OF AP, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased toto present this memorandum of Criminal Revision Case against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam in FC.OP.No.371 of 2013, dated 1004-2015.

¶16

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 1821 OF 2015

¶18

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 all further proceedings in FCOP 371/2013 on the file of Additional Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.M V RAJA RAAM

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.C SINDHU KUMARI

¶23

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following ORDERS:

¶25

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instructions. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 requests that a warrant be issued against the revision petitioner.

¶26

2. The proceeding sheet dated 04.07.2025 shows that both the petitioner and respondent No.1 were directed to appear before the court on 21.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petitioner be allowed to appear online, as he resides in the U.S.A. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also requested the same facility due to being abroad. Consequently, both parties were directed to appear online on 25.07.2025 at 01.00 PM. The 1^st respondent appeared physically before this Court on 21.07.2025, but the revision petitioner did not appear. No reason was provided for his nonappearance, and this Court posted the matter under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ .

¶27

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he had no instructions. The matter is listed under the

¶28

¶29

caption ‘For Dismissal’ . This revision petition challenges the orders passed in FCOP.No.371 of 2013, dated 10.04.2013, where the petitioner herein / respondent in FCOP is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/from 26.03.2013 to his minor child until her marriage. It appears that the petitioner is not showing interest in proceeding with the matter. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to see any reason to adjourn the matter, as the case is already listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’ . Since the impugned order directs the petitioner to pay maintenance, the request by the respondent’s counsel to issue a warrant against the petitioner is not considered. In light of the fact that the matter has been pending for more than ten years and the petitioner has not cooperated, either by providing instructions to his counsel or by appearing before the Court, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the case for non-prosecution.

¶30

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for nonprosecution .

¶31

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶33

Date: 04.08.2025 M K K / S A K

¶34

¶35

160

¶36