APHC010016712024 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: 455/2024 Between: A VENKATESWARLU, S/O. A. RAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED 70 YEARS. RETD. GOVT. SERVANT. R/O. D.NO. 2-93, KOTHACHERLOPALLE, PUDIPATLA, TIRUPATI RURAL, CHITOOR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A SAMBAVATHI, W/O. A.VENKATESWARLU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 4-6-24, RESERVOIR COLONY TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED 25.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.R.C.NO.455 OF 2024. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANNEBOINA BHARGAV 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioner / Respondent seeking to set aside the Order dated 02.11.2023 in F.C.O.P.No.71 of 2020 passed by the learned Family Judge- cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2 2. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sanneboina Bhargav, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order would show that the Petitioner here was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked on his behalf. However, there is no whisper about the said documents in the entire order. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the matter need to be remanded to the trial Court for consideration of such documents. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders and a direction may be given to the Petitioner to pay the maintenance meanwhile. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds merit in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. It is evident that though Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked on behalf of the Petitioner herein, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the same while rendering the decision. Such non-consideration of material evidence vitiates the order. In that view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration by the trial Court after duly taking into account Exs.B.1 to B.5, along with the other evidence on record. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The learned trial Judge is directed to hear both parties and take a decision afresh by taking Exs.B.1 to 3 B.5 into consideration, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. Meanwhile, Petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance, as already ordered by the trial Court. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.04.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.455 of 2024 Dt.17.04.2026 Dinesh