Kudumula Bhagya Lakshmi v. Kudumula Venkata Rao and four others

Counsel for the Petitioner : Shri M.Srinivasa Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : None Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 : Government Pleader for Law and Legislative Affairs Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Shri A.Rajasekhar Reddy November 20, 2006 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

In all these circumstances it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to taking considered as under Article 226 of Indian Constitution to issue a writ or orders or directions more in nature of writ of certiorari and call for records. (a) to conduct the public interest litigation fully unless sent the notices to all the respondents. (b) preceding the final proceedings of this prima facie writ petition. (c) to declare these impugned legislations are contrary to the Indian Constitution i.e., the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Criminal Procedure Code pertaining maintenances of legitimate Tribal wife (petitioner) and my minor daughter legitimate Tribal minor daughter. (d) Quash all the Judicial proceedings includes the executive proceedings or if any other proceedings past and in future indefinitely of the 1st Respondent against me and my minor daughter. (e) to award maintenance a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the date of filing of this prima facie writ petition. (f) The petitioner may be called as (declared as) the petitioner is legitimate Tribal wife of the 1st Respondent and directed the Secretaries, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India (4th, 5th respondents) for issuing the Valmiki Caste, Schedule Tribe, Hindu Religion certificates to the MRO, Chintapalli the petitioner Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District and District issued by Collector Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. (g) and for such other relief or reliefs as your lordships may be deems thinks fit and proper in this prima facie writ petition in the interest of Justice, equity and conscience

. After arguing the case for sometime, Shri M.Srinivasa Rao made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, WPMP No.22057 of 2006 filed by the petitioner is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20-11-2006