APHC010265852015 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: 459/2015 Between: 1. MANDA BABU RAO, PRAKASAM DIST., S/O YESU, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER, A.P.S.R.T.C., ADDANKI DEPOT, ADDANKI, R/O MEDARAMETLA VILLAGE, KORISUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P P HYD ANO, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD. 2. MANDA SHANTA KUMARI, W/O BABU RAO, CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MEDARAMETLA VILLAGE, KORISUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the entire records connected to the order dated 20.02.2014 passed in Crl.R.P.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, and set aside the same, pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 755 OF 2015 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 operation of the Order Dated: 20-02-2015,Passed in -2- CRL.R.C. No.459 of 2015 Crl. RP No. 12 of 2013 on the file of the II-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, at Ongole, pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAUSHIK KUMBHAJADALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: -3- CRL.R.C. No.459 of 2015 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 459 OF 2015 ORDER: 1. Inspite of the matter is being listed under the caption „for dismissal‟, none appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The instant criminal revision case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the order, dated 20.02.2014, passed by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, FAC Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, in Crl.R.P. No.12 of 2013, whereby learned Judge partly allowed the revision petition by enhancing the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- as awarded by learned trial court in M.C.No.8 of 2007, to Rs.5,000/-. 3. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the 2nd respondent herein is the petitioner in the M.C. 4. The instant revision case was admitted on 24.03.2015, and notice was issued to the respondent. The matter was subsequently listed on 30.06.2025, on which date none appeared for the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directed the Legal Services Authority, Prakasam at Ongole, either to record or cause recording of the statements of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, and directed the matter to be listed on 21.07.2025. On that date also, the petitioner was not present and the matter was again directed to be listed on -4- CRL.R.C. No.459 of 2015 04.08.2025. On that date, it was reported that Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel engaged by the petitioner, had passed away, and that the petitioner intended to engage a new counsel. Recording the same, a notice was issued to the petitioner. However, in spite of receipt of notice and having knowledge of the pendency of the matter, the petitioner did not turn up. The matter is pending since 2015. Considering the long pendency of the matter, this Court has proceeded to hear the criminal revision case on merit on 01.04.2026. Today, the case is taken up under the caption “for dismissal”. None appears for the petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor was heard. 5. I have carefully examined the order impugned in the revision. On close scrutiny of the findings, it is evident that learned Judge enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- with proper finding into merits of the case, and has rightly held that the petitioner herein being the husband is liable to maintain his wife. The obligation of a husband to provide maintenance to his wife is a settled principle and the direction of the learned Judge in this regard is in consonance with law and equity. 6. In view of the fact that the parties have shown no inclination to prosecute the matter further and finding no illegality or impropriety in the order of the Family Court, instant criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merit. -5- CRL.R.C. No.459 of 2015 7. Since the petitioner is not present before this Court, let a copy of this order be served upon learned trial court, for ready reference. 8. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date:30.04.2026 BV