THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5023 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.10.2008 passed in I.A.No.1328 of 2008 in M.V.O.P.No.196 of 2006 by the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the father and mother of one Nagamalleshwar Rao, who died in a motor accident. They filed the said M.V.O.P claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the said Nagamalleshwar Rao. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Krishna, decreed the said M.V.O.P on 06.12.2007 awarding compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.30,000/- each to petitioner 2 and 3, totalling Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and costs. Out of the said amount, the first petitioner was permitted to withdraw Rs.40,000/- plus interest and costs towards her share and petitioners 2 and 3 were permitted to withdraw Rs.15,000/- each plus interest towards their share and the rest of the amount was directed to be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. The petitioners filed the above I.A to permit the first petitioner to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest towards her share stating that the first petitioner was a young widow aged about 24 years and on the advise of her parents, she intended to go for second marriage and the marriage was scheduled to be held on 13.11.2008 at Kondipalem Village, and therefore, the said amount is required for her marriage expenses. The Court below dismissed the said I.A on 24.10.2008. Hence, this revision petition. This Court, on 12.11.2008, allowed C.R.P.M.P.No.6661 of 2001 permitting the first petitioner to withdraw the balance amount of her share along with interest granted by the Tribunal, subject to condition of her furnishing a personal bond for the said amount to the satisfaction of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Even as per the decree dated 06.12.2007 passed by the Tribunal, the balance amount was directed to be invested in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. Since the said three years period was already expired by December, 2010, there is no impediment for withdrawal of the amount by first petitioner towards her share. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw their shares along with interest accrued thereon, without furnishing any bonds. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 21.04.2011 va