Dismissed¶34

Seema Viswanadham v. Seeina Kalyani

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2025CRLRC/2643/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seema Viswanadham v. Seema Kalyani; CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2643 of 2018; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao; decision date 08.12.2025; Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.; Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. interim maintenance; Section 151 CPC stay petition (IA No. 1 of 2018); Crl.M.P.No.1147 of 2017 in M.C.No.19 of 2017; Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, Srikakulam District; main M.C. disposed 29.03.2019; revision dismissed as infructuous; interim orders vacated; miscellaneous applications closed; counsel M Rajeswari (petitioner) and Sri K. Sandeep, Asst. Public Prosecutor (respondents).

What did the court decide?

In view of the disposal of the main M.C.No.19 of 2017 on 29.03.2019, the cause in the Criminal Revision Case does not survive for adjudication and the matter has become infructuous. ¶33

Seema Viswanadham Vs Seeina Kalyani — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3369]

¶2

APHC010729592018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2643 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

SEEMA VISWANADHAM, S/O RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND GRADE TEACHER, G.S.T.M.P.E.SCHOOL, KAMALAPURAM VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL', R/O BRAHMANATARLA VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SEEMA KALYANI, W/O VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HINDI PANDIT IN ITDA, R/O KARAJADA VILLAGE, MELIAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

SEEMA LAKSHYA, D/O VISWANADHAM, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP. BY ITS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. SEEMA KALYANI W/O VISWANADHAM R/O KARAJADA VILLAGE, MELIAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case against the order dt.10-8-2018 made in

¶17

¶18

Crl.M.P.No.1147/2017 in M.C.No.19/2017 on the file of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, Srikakulam district for the following

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the orders dt. 10-8-2018 made in Cr1.M.P.No.1147/2017 in M.C.No.19/2017 on the file of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, Srikakulam district pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.M RAJESWARI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.SRI K. SANDEEP, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/respondent under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) against the Order dated 10.08.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1147 of 2017 in M.C.No.19 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tekkali, Srikakulam District (for short, ‘the trial Court’).

¶29

2. Heard and perused the record.

¶30

3. As seen from the record, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1147 of 2017 in M.C.No.19 of 2017. The Crl.M.P.No.1147 of 2017 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking for interim maintenance. By impugned order dated 10.08.2018, the trial Court allowed the petition by recording certain reasons. Against the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the present revision.

¶31

¶32

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the main M.C.No.19 of 2017 was disposed on 29.03.2019. In support of this, a copy from the e-Courts website has been filed, which reflects that the said M.C.No.19 of 2017 was disposed on 29.03.2019 and it was allowed.

¶33

5. Recording the said submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in view of the disposal of the M.C.No.19 of 2017 on 29.03.2019, this Court finds the cause does not survive for adjudication and the matter would become infructuous.

¶34

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶35

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶37

Date: 08.12.2025 MS

¶38

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶40