APHC010122392019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 448/2019 Between: 1. JENJANAM HARINARAYANA, AGE 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-27, VASANTHAVADA VILLAGE, PEDAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DIATICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. JANJANAM VIJAYA DURGA, . D.NO.16B-15-6, 3RD DIVISION, BALAJI NAGAR, NEAR ASHKONAGAR NEW BRIDGE ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. JANJANAM JAI CHANDRA, AGED 12 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16B-15-6, 3RD DIVISION, BALAJI NAGAR, NEAR ASHKONAGAR NEW BRIDGE ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. JANJANAM ROHIT, AGED 10 ABOUT YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16B-15-6, 3RD DIVISION, BALAJI NAGAR, NEAR ASHKONAGAR NEW BRIDGE ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set-aside the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in M.C. No. 18/2016 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court - Cum- VII Addtional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2019 2 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 be pleased to suspend the order dated 11.03.2019 passed in M.C. No. 18/2016 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-Cum- VII Addtional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 448/2019 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/husband, against the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed in M.C. No. 18/2016 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court - Cum- VII Addtional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. Heard Mr.Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is in attendance. Notice sent to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 through DLSA, West Godavari District, Eluru, returned with an endorsement as “no such person in the address”. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 herein are husband and wife. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, are the children of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, filed M.C. No. 18 of 2016 before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court -Cum- VII Addtional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, seeking maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge after due enquiry, granted maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- each per month to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, from the date of filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband and that the maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and children is on the higher side. He is an RMP who administers first aid and other simple treatments, earning only Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the petitioner was subjected to mental and physical harassment by Respondent No. 1, on account of which he had filed an application seeking divorce. It is also submitted that the Trial Judge did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has no movable or immovable properties of his own and has no other source of income to maintain the respondents, as he is also required to look after his aged parents and his 100% mentally and physically retarded sister. It is further contended that Respondent No. 1 has sufficient properties and independent income to maintain herself and the children. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Judge erred in awarding maintenance to the wife, who had subjected him to cruelty. 5. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and, upon proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has granted maintenance in a just and reasonable manner. The learned Judge has also rightly observed that, although the petitioner claimed to be earning only Rs. 5,000/- per month, he failed to produce any documentary 5 evidence to substantiate the said claim. There is no dispute that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 therein are minors, and there is also no dispute with regard to their paternity. In absence of such proof, the learned Judge was justified in drawing an appropriate inference and assessing the petitioner’s earning capacity on the basis of the material available on record. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned judgment is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed in M.C. No. 18/2016 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court -Cum- VII Addtional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.04.2026. UPS 6 134 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 448/2019 Dt.21.04.2026 UPS