Dismissed¶36

Manukonda Babu Rao, Wg.Dt., v. Smt. Manukonda Manga, Wg.Dt & 3 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2025CRLRC/296/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Crl.R.C. No. 296 of 2017; criminal revision dismissed as infructuous; challenge to interlocutory restoration order in maintenance case rendered moot by final dismissal of main M.C. No.1 of 2012 on 28.07.2017; Sections 397 and 401 CrPC; Section 151 CPC (stay petition); interim orders vacated; no precedents cited; single judge T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J; decided 19.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; interim orders, if any, granted earlier directed to stand vacated and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, directed to stand closed. ¶36

Manukonda Babu Rao, Wg.Dt., Vs Smt. Manukonda Manga, Wg.Dt & 3 Otrs, Rep Pp. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; interim orders, if any, granted earlier directed to stand vacated and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, directed to stand closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Case challenging the interlocutory order dated 15.12.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2012 survives for independent adjudication after the main Maintenance Case No.1 of 2012 stands finally dismissed and has attained finality.

¶35

Court's answer

Since the main case (M.C.No.1 of 2012) has been concluded, dismissed on contest on 28.07.2017, and has attained finality, any challenge to the interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose; nothing further remains for determination in the present Revision Case.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous.

¶36

Key takeaways

Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C.) by the husband against the interlocutory order dated 15.12.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2012 (II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District), whereby the Trial Court allowed the wife's and two minor daughters' petition to restore the maintenance case dismissed on 09.11.2012 and permitted them to adduce evidence. Before the revision could be adjudicated, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor placed on record a status report from the E-courts portal showing that the main Maintenance Case No.1 of 2012 was finally dismissed on contest on 28.07.2017. Held: the main case having concluded and attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance and adjudicating the revision would serve no useful purpose. The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as infructuous; interim orders, if any, were directed to stand vacated and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, to stand closed. (T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J., 19.09.2025)

APHC010094592017

[3369]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 296/2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

MANUKONDA BABU R AO, WG.DT., S/O ARJUNARAO AGED 39 YEARS R/O YERRAMALLA, U N GUTUR(M) WEST GODAVARI DISTRI C T.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SMT MANUKONDA MANGA WG DT 3 OTRS REP PP, W/O B ABU RAO AGED 29 YEAR S R/O H.NO.11-115, GANTAVA R IGUDEM, NALLAJARLA(M); WE S T GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

MANUKONDA LNDU PRIYA, D/O BABU RAO AGED 14 YE A RS OCC: STUDENT R/O H.N O .11-115, GANTAVARIGUDEM, NALLAJARLA(M); WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, MINOR REP. BY MO T HER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1

¶15

MANUKONDA LAVA N YA, D/O BABU RAO AGED 11 YE A RS OCC: STUDENT R/O H.N O .11-115, GANTAVARIGUDEM, NALLAJARLA(M); WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, MINOR REP. BY MO T HER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1

¶16

STATE OF ANDHRA P RADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PRO S ECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HY D ERABAD.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated in th e affidavit filed in support of the Crimi n al Revision Case, the High Court m a y be pleased to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.1385/2016 in M. C .No.1/2012 dt.15-12-2016 on the file o f learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ta d epalligudem, West Godavari District, an d pass such

¶19

¶20

other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 471 OF 2017

¶22

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 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1385/2016 in M.C.No.1/2012 dt.15-12-2016 on the file of learned II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligude, West Godavari District.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶28

1. The present Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is preferred on behalf of the petitioner/husband challenging the order dated 15.12.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District (for short, ‘the Trial Court’).

¶29

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in this Criminal Revision Case.

¶30

3. It is evident from the record that respondents 1 to 3 herein filed Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2012, seeking to restore M.C.No.1 of 2012 by setting aside the dismissal order dated 09.11.2012. As per the impugned order, the Trial Court, on 15.12.2016, allowed the petition and permitted the respondents 1 to 3 herein to adduce evidence by the next adjournment.

¶31

¶32

4. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 in M.C.No.1 of 2012, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Crl.R.C.No.296 of 2017.

¶33

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

¶34

6. Sri K. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 4^th respondent / State, contends that as per the status report obtained from the E-courts portal, Maintenance Case No.1of 2012, in which the order dated 15.12.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.1385 of 2016 was passed, was finally dismissed on contest before the Trial Court on 28.07.2017. He further contends that, in view of the dismissal of the main case, the present Criminal Revision, directed against the said interlocutory order, no longer survives for independent adjudication and has, therefore, become infructuous.

¶35

7. This Court, upon a careful consideration of the submission advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and having regard to the fact that the very M.C., in which the impugned order was passed, already stands dismissed, is of the considered view that nothing further remains for determination in the present Revision Case. Since the main case has been concluded and has attained finality, any challenge to an interlocutory order passed therein has lost its relevance, and adjudicating the present Criminal Revision Case would serve no useful purpose.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

________________________ T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶39

Date: 19.09.2025 S A K

¶40

¶41

605

¶42