THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.968 of 2009 Date:13th October, 2009 Between: Karadas Kavitha …Petitioner and 1. State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.968 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 04.05.2009 passed in DVC No.25 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Laxettipet, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate granted certain reliefs to the petitioner/wife. Para.16 of the order dated 04.05.2009 passed in D.V.C.No.25 of 2007 reads as hereunder: “In the result, the petition is allowed granting the following reliefs: 1. Protection Order U/Sec.18 of the Act restraining the respondent from causing any kind of domestic violence against the petitioner. 2. Monetary relief U/Sec.20 directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) p.m. to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of this order. 3. The respondent is directed to return the Stridhana property of the petitioner i.e., ½ tula gold and household articles given to them at the time of their marriage. 4. The respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the petitioner towards compensation for the domestic violence caused to her within (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Protection Officer, Adilabad and the concerned police for its effective implementation.” Dis-satisfied with the quantum of amount allowed towards monthly maintenance, the wife has filed this Revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 18.06.2009. 2nd respondent/husband entered appearance through a counsel. 4. When the revision came up for admission on 02.09.2009, there was no representation on either side and therefore, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. When the revision was listed on 15.09.2009 under the caption ‘for dismissal’, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/husband represented that some negotiations are going on between the parties and therefore, an adjournment has been sought for. Considering the said representation, the revision was directed to be listed under the same caption after four weeks. Accordingly, the revision is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on either side. It indicates that the revision petitioner is not interested in pursuing this revision. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed for non- prosecution. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:13th October, 2009. Cs