APHC010248492019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 882/2019 Between: 1. GORREMUTCHU KALYANA RAO,, S/O. PRABHAKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC GOVT EMPLOYEE GUNTUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AMARAVATHI. 2. SMT GORREMUTCHU LAVANYA, W/O. KALYANA RAO C/O. G.VEEERA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE INDRATEJ HOMES, C-3, H.NO.5-1-47. 1/17 BRODIPET, GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT- 522002 3. SMT NIHA CHELSIA, D/O. KALYANA RAO AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC (3RD RESPONDENT IS BEING MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT) ...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 aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-2019 in FCOP No. 445 of 2014 on the file of Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court Guntur, Guntur District, 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 to dispense with filing of the certified copy of order dated 27-3-2019 passed in F.C.O.P No. 445 of 2014 on the file of Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court, Guntur District pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case IA NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay of all Further proceedings in order dated 27-3-2019 passed in F.C.O.P No. 445 of 2014 on the file of Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court, Guntur District, Guntur pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition 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 to vacate the Interim Order dated 26.08.2019 passed in lA No.2 of 2019 in CrI RC No. 882 of 2019 of this Hon’ble High Court, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARLU GADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SUDHAKAR REDDY CHALLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 882/2019 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/husband, aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2019 in FCOP No. 445 of 2014 passed by the learned Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court Guntur, Guntur District, granting maintenance of Rs.9,500/- per month to the respondent No.2/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.3/minor child. 2. Heard Mr.Venkateswarlu Gada, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhakar Reddy Challa, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is in attendance. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein are husband and wife. The respondent No. 3 is the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, filed FCOP No. 445 of 2014 before the learned Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court Guntur, Guntur District, seeking maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge after due enquiry, maintenance of Rs.9,500/- per month to the respondent No.2/wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.3/minor child, from the month of November, 2014. 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. 9,500/- per month to Respondent No. 2 (wife) and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Respondent No. 3 (minor child) is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant with a meagre salary, whereas Respondent No. 2 is well educated and employed in a private job, earning more than Rs. 25,000/- per month. The learned Trial Judge failed to observe that Respondent No. 2 possesses immovable properties in her name. It is also contended that the learned Judge did not consider that the petitioner’s net salary was Rs. 10,302/- for the month of December 2014. Further, it is submitted that the Trial Judge did not take into account that the petitioner has no other source of income to maintain the respondents, as he is also required to look after his aged parents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while granting maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is a well reasoned order and does not warrant any interference of this Court. He would further submit that the petitioner had disputed the paternity of the minor child during the trial, and on the direction of the Trial Court, a DNA test was conducted, which confirmed that the petitioner is the father of the child. It is contended that, after considering all the material on record, the learned Trial Judge passed the order in accordance with law. After due consideration the material before him, 5 learned Trial Judge has passed in the impugned order. Learned counsel finally prays for dismissal of the revision. 6. 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 both 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. 7,000/- per month, he failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the said claim; however, during the course of cross-examination, he himself deposed that his gross salary was Rs. 29,000/- and odd. In the 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. The learned Judge has further observed that the defence taken by the petitioner is false and that, even after receipt of the DNA report, he did not change his stand. It is also noted that the conduct of the petitioner is not proper. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 in FCOP No. 445 of 2014 passed by the 6 learned Family Court Cum XII Additional District Court, Guntur, Guntur District. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.04.2026. UPS 7 196 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 882/2019 Dt.17.04.2026 UPS