APHC010538462014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1509/2014 Between: 1. KANUMURU VENKATA APPALA RAJU, VIZIANAGARAM DT., S/O.LATE JOGI RAJU, HINDU, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O. BACK SIDE OF SAIBABA TEMPLE, NAKKANNAPETA VILLAGE, POOSAPATIREGA - 535 204, VIZIANAGARARN DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANUMURU RAMA DEVI VIZIANAGARAM ANR, W/O. VENKATA APPALA RAJU, R/O. D.NO.8-18-198, V.T. AGRAHARAM - 535 002, VIZINAGARAM. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto set aside the order made in FCOP No. 62 of 2013 on the fiel fo the court of the judge, Family Court cum III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram,dated 29.04.2014 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2473 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order made in FCOP.No.62 of 2013 on the file of 2 the court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Ill Addl. District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, dated 29.04.2014, pending dispOsal of the present Criminal Revision Case and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the Interim Orders, dt.23.07.2014 granted in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2473 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.No.1509 of 2014, and dismiss the Crl.R.C.No.1509 of 2014, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M KARUNA SAGAR 2. SARIPALLI SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1509/2014 The Court made the following ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging order dated 29.04.2014 passed by learned Judge Family Court-Cum-III Additional District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram in F.C.O.P.No.62 of 2013 wherein and where under the learned Court below has allowed the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 1 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’). There by directing the present petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month. Submissions of petitioner: 2. The impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal and improper. The learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, and there is perversity in the order. There are no reliable documents to establish that the respondent wife is entitled to maintenance. There is no documentary evidence of income and expenditure before the learned court below, yet the order has been passed in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. The petitioner has limited resources, and it is not possible for him to pay maintenance as directed. He therefore prays for setting aside the order passed by the learned court below. 1 The Cr.P.C, 1973 4 Submissions of respondents: 3. Learned court below has made no error in passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not warrant any interference and only directs payment of maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 06.06.2013. The amount of maintenance awarded is itself very meager. The learned court below has decided all the issues properly and passed the impugned order accordingly. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order. Thus, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. Observation of this Court: 4. The learned Family Court, while passing the impugned order, has properly dealt with the pleadings of both parties. Initially, the petitioner-wife claimed an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance. The learned court below has also properly considered the expenditures incurred by the present petitioner. While deciding the matter, the learned court below framed three specific issues and dealt with each of them in detail. In deciding the issues, the learned court below opined that the petitioner, being the wife, is unable to maintain herself. The learned court below also held that the husband neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner. However, after considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the various litigations between the parties, the evidence placed on record by both sides, and the financial status of the parties, the learned court below awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-. 5 5. I have perused the observations of the learned court below. Admittedly, the petitioner, being the husband, has a moral and legal duty to maintain his wife. In the present case, it has been established the wife, was unable to maintain herself, and that the petitioner has sufficient income to maintain her. 6. Furthermore, it appears that Rs. 8,000/- is a very meager amount. At this juncture, it is not possible for any person to maintain a reasonable standard of living with such a meager sum. Thus, in the present case, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the order of maintenance passed by the learned court below through the impugned order appears to be justified. Thus, the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. It is submitted by the parties that while entertaining the Criminal Revision Case, this Court had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Such direction has been duly complied with by the petitioner till date. The said interim direction passed by this Court is hereby revoked. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month as ordered by the learned court below in the impugned order. There may have some arrears, the same shall be paid within one year in six (06) equal installments. 8. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:30.04.2026 SSA