Dismissed¶52

A.K.Rekha v. K.a.Sahadevan & the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Aug 2025CRLRC/774/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; CRLRC 774/2009; Justice T Mallikarjuna Rao; decided 14-08-2025; revision under CrPC Sections 397/401 against order dated 23-08-2007 in M.C.No.51 of 2005, Family Court-cum-V Addl. District Judge, Tirupati; maintenance claim by wife-petitioner A.K.Rekha against husband K.A.Sahadevan; dismissed for non-prosecution - petitioner absent, whereabouts unknown, notice unserved; DLSA Chittoor recorded respondent's statement (direction dated 16-06-2025); interim orders vacated; miscellaneous petitions closed; no merits decided, no quantum, no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

With the petitioner absent and unpursuing, her statement unrecordable and notice to her unserved, the Court found itself unable to proceed further without proper representation from both sides. ¶51

A.K.Rekha Vs K.a.Sahadevan & the State of A.P. — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010446102009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 774 OF 2009

¶7

Revision filed under Sections 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 set-aside the Order, dated 23-082007 passed in M.C.No.51 of 2005 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati and grant maintenance to the petitioner by allowing the present CrI.R.C. with costs throughout.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.K.Rekha, W/o.K.A.Sahadevan, Hindu, aged 32 years. Dependant, R/o.H.No.59, H-Block, New Police Quarters, Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶10

...REVISION PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

K.A.Sahadevan, S/o.Arunachalam, [ Hindu, aged 42 years. Teacher,

¶13

R/o.D.No.3/61, Anjaneyar Koil Street Velarpuram, Arakkonam Taluk

¶14

Tamil Nadu. Within the jurisdiction of Arakkonam District. Munsif Court

¶15

-531003.

¶16

The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

¶17

' .i Amaravati.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI E.VENKATA REDDY (NO REPRESENTATION)

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI S.DILIP JAVA RAM

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER :

¶23

[3369]

¶24

APHC010446102009

¶25

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

¶26

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶29

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 774/2009

¶30

Between:

¶31

1.A.K.REKHA, W/0 K.A.SAHADEVAN, NIL; DEPENDANT R/0 H.N0.59, H-BLOCK, NEW POLICE QUARTERS, BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATI,

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

1.K A SAHADEVAN THE STATE OF A P, S/0 ARUNACHALAM, TEACHER R/0 D.NO.3/61, ANJANEYAR KOIL STREET, VELARPURAM, ARAKKONAM TALUK, TAMIL NADU. WITIN THE JURISDICTION OF ARAKKONAM

¶35

2.THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,^HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD.

¶36

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶37

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support^{oftheCriminalRevision} Case, the High Court may be pleased toto set-aside the Order of Family Court-cum-V Addl. Dist. Judge, Tirupati passed in M.C.No.51 of 2005, dated 23.08.07 and grant maintenance to the petitioner by allowing the present CrI.R.C., with costs.

¶38

lA NO: 1 OF 2008fCRLRCMP OF 2008

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i ... ”s z: f:z";.zz .'“’c•“presented passed in jA NO: 2 OF 2008fCRI RCMP 2R4fi np 2008 =ssis-i:==

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.E VENKATA REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.S DILIP JAVA RAM

¶44

2.-

¶45

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶47

Criminal Revision Case No.774 of 2009

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

None appeared for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2 are present.

¶50

On 16.06.2025, this Court directed the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor, to record the statement of the petitioner and respondent. In compliance of the order of this Court, the Secretary, recorded the statement of the respondent but could not record^thestatement of the petitioner as her whereabouts are not known.

¶51

Despite the best efforts of this Court, the petitioner's^{statementcould} not be recorded. The petitioner also did not take steps to pursue the matter and therefore, this Court issued notice to the petitioner owing to the petitioner not pursuing the matter. However, the notice could not be served. As a result. the Court is unable to proceed further without proper representation from both sides.

¶52