APHC010001702019 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: 4/2019 Between: 1. M RAJA SHEKAR, S/O. RAMBABU, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.16-31-10/19/2, NEAR NAGENDRA SWAMY PUTTA BAZAR, 8TH LANE, BALAJI NAGAR, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI AND 3 OTHERS. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 4/2019 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by the common order dated 26.11.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.303 of 2014 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each per month to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the date of presentation of the petition. 2. Heard Mr. K. Srinivas, 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 No.2 is returned ‘unserved’ with an endorsement ‘no such person in the address’. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein are husband and wife. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the children of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was performed on 09.05.2007 at Vaikuntapuram, Tenali according to Hindu Religious rights. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein, filed F.C.O.P.No.303 of 2014 before the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge after due enquiry, granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each per month to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the date of presentation of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 3 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.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each per month to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to observe that the petitioner herein was always ready to lead matrimonial life with the respondent No.2 but she insisted for dissolution of marriage and for payment of maintenance. Learned Trial Court has not taken the weak financial position of the petitioner into consideration while granting maintenance. Learned Trial Judge failed to observe that the respondent No.2 is well educated and is self sufficient to maintain herself and her children. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent No.2 is habituated to lavish life and always instigated the petitioner herein to spend his income lavishly and harassed him to get her demands met. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State, would submit that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while granting maintenance to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is a well reasoned order and does not warrant any interference of this Court. 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, learned Trial Judge has passed in the impugned order. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 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 oral and 4 documentary evidence and, upon proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded maintenance in a just and reasonable manner. The learned Judge has also rightly observed that the petitioners therein/respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein failed to adduce any evidence to establish the income of the petitioner herein/respondent therein. Further, taking into account the evidence of the brother of the petitioner herein, who stated that he is maintaining his brother and that the petitioner is unemployed, and also considering the fact that the petitioner is an able-bodied person, the learned Judge has reasonably assessed a notional income based on the prevailing daily wages of a labourer and, on that basis, determined the monthly income for the purpose of granting maintenance. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence, and does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned common order dated 26.11.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.303 of 2014 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.04.2026. UPS 5 209 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 4/2019 Dt.17.04.2026 UPS