IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO : 931 of 2010 (Criminal Revision case under Section:_______ against the Judgment in NO : dated ______ on the file of the Court of the to set-aside the Orders dated 12.03.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.1040/2009 in M.C.No. 79/2008, on the file fo the learned Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, for the JHCBBC Cum Addl. Family Court XXIII Addl. Chief Judge, Hyderabad, committing the petitioner to prison for a period of (5) months, preferred against the order in CRL.MP 1040 2009 dated 12/03/2010 on the file of the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge For Trail of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast Case-Cum-Addl,. Family Court-Cum-XXIII Additional. Chief Judge, CCC,Hyderabad) Between: Sri Riyaz Mohd. Khan, S/o. Late Fazal Mohammed Khan, R/o. H.No. 9-10-68/A/539, Reshambagh, Golconda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Smt. Safa Naaz, D/o Late Abdul Hafeez Khan, W/o Riyaz Mohammed Khan, R/o. R/o. H.No. 8-1-40/36/1, Samatha Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. 2 Mohammed Nadeem Khan, S/o. Riyaz Mohammed Khan, R/o. H.No. 8-1-40/36/1, Samatha Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. 3 Mohammed Sayeed Khan, S/o. Riyaz Mohammed Khan, R/o H.No.8-1-40/36/1, Samatha Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. (Resp. 2 & are minors, staying with petitioner in pursuance of the Orders dt.07.08.09 of Family Court, Hyd., in OP No. 189/2009 and hence not necessary parties). 4 The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.HANUMANTHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following : PSR, J. Crl.R.C.No. 931 of 2010 Judgment This revision case is directed against the order passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCCBC-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad made in M.P.No. 1040 of 2009 in M.C.No. 79 of 2008 on 12.03.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for non payment of maintenance amount, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and the petitioner has now paid the entire amount. 3. In the circumstances, the revision case is disposed of directing release of the petitioner, since the entire amount is said to have been paid by the petitioner. The court below is directed to issue the release order, after satisfying itself that the amounts as directed are deposited. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:30—04—2010. *BVS