IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN : PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 944 of 2002. (Criminal Revision case under Sections 397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. to revise the order of the Court of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and passed in Crl.A.No. 212 of 1999 dated 27-6-2002 preferred against the order of the Court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam and passed in C.C.No. 51 of 1998 dated. 22-11-1999.) Between:- Ms. Sripati Venkata Sailaja W/o. Sripati Ramakrisha Prasad. ..Petitioner. AND 1.Sripati Ramakrishna Prasad S/o. late Narasimha Rao, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, (Working as Telephone Mechanic, Machilipatnam). 2. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondents The Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memo of grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of sri T. Padyumnakumar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1, and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: “The present revision is preferred by the complainant-wife aggrieved by the acquittal record against the accused for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant that the said complaint was lodged on the ground of cruelty and that after the birth of second child, the complainant has lost her eye-sight, but the accused has neglected her without providing any medical aid dispute that the complainant has lost her eye sight after delivery of the second child. No material as to the medical aid has been placed before this Court so as to ascertain the bonafides on the part of the accused. Under the above circumstances and in view of the moral responsibility that is cast on the accused being the husband, it is for him to provide medical aid to the complainant so as to enable her to get the eye-sight restored. In view of the advanced technology and in view of the age of the complainant being 40 years, I feel that there is every probability and likelihood of restoration of her eye sight. Therefore, I feel it just and proper to direct the accused to provide appropriate treatment to the complainant in Hyderabad by consulting experts and file proof of medical treatment and the opinion thereon. With the above direction, the case is adjourned by three weeks.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Contd..2…. - 2 - To 1.The VI Additional District and Sessions Judge(F.T.C), Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2.The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3.Sripati Ramakrishna Prasad S/o. late Narasimha Rao, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, (Working as Telephone Mechanic, Machilipatnam), Krishna District. (By Speed Post/R.P.A.D) 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 6.Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.Hyd(OUT) 7. One CC to Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, Advocate(OPUC). 8. One spare copy. 9. One CC to Sri T. Pradyumnakumar Reddy, Advocate(OPUC). TKK HIGH COURT TMK.J DT.06-06-2007. ORDER CRL.RC.NO. 944 OF 2002. D I R E C T I O N. DRAFTED BY TKK DT.14-06-2007. HIGH COURT TMK.J DT.06-06-2007. ORDER CRL.RC.NO. 944 OF 2002. D I R E C T I O N.