Bondalapati Penchala Prabhakar Vs B.Renu Chakravarthi & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2503 OF 2012

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Family Court at Guntur in Ordering^{themaintenance} in MC.No.39 of 2010 on dated 19.10.2012. Between:

¶5

Bondalapati Penchala Prabhakar, S/o. Venkateshwarlu,^{Occ:LabourOfficer,} R/o. Palakollu, West Godavari, Eluru.

¶6

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶7

AND

¶8

B.Renu Chakravarthi , W/o. Penchala Prabhakar, R/o. BI/87, 3-12-7, 3rd lane Old Pattabhipuram, Guntur.

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati

¶10

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER

¶11

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(CRLRCMP. NO: 3758 OF 2012)

¶12

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 orders passed in M.C.No.39 of 2012 on the file of the Family Court, Guntur, dated 19.10.2012.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.SRINIVASA THAKUR SINGH

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents No.1: SRI S.KALEEMULLA

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

APHCM 0200612012

¶17

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

¶18

[3521]

¶19

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO rPiMlNAl revision case NO: 2503/2012

¶22

Between;

¶23

Bondalapati Penchala Prabhakar

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

AND

¶26

B. Renu Chakravarthi and others

¶27

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

Srinivasa Thakur Singh. K

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶31

Kaleemulla. S

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

petitioner for quite long time. In spite of No representation for the granting several opportunities, the counsel for the^{petitionerhasnotchosento} submit arguments, though the case was posted as a last chance

¶35

St respondent and the learned 2. Heard the learned counsel for the 1 Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2

¶36

The criminal revision case was filed challenging the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) granted in favour of the 1®* respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband in M.C.No.39 of 2010 by the learned Judge Family Court, Guntur.

¶37

Sri S. Kaleemulla, the learned counsel for the 1®* respondent submits that the criminal revision case has become infructuous inasmuch as the 1®' respondent/wife had already filed a miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.460 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge Family Court, Guntur seeking for enhancing of maintenance from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, but the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed in part granting only Rs. 15,000/per month in favour of the 1®' respondent. The learned counsel for the 1 respondent has also produced a copy of the order of the learned Judge Family Court, Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.460 of 2019 dated 06.02.2025. On verification of the said order, the learned Judge Family Court, Guntur partly allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition granting Rs. 15,000/against the claim of Rs.30,000/- to the 1®‘ respondent herein towards enhancing the maintenance. Therefore, this criminal revision case has become infructuous because the petitioner has already filed Crl.R.C.No.462 of 2025 before this Court. So the petitioner is required to work out his remedies in Cri.R.C.No.462 of 2025, if so advised.

¶38