APHC010122912010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1701/2010 Between: Nimmala Gopi Raju ...PETITIONER AND Smt Nimmala Padmavathi and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKAT CHALLA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.) challenging the order, dated 24.08.2010 in M.C.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge Family Court–cum–Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO 2. LEGAL AID 2 the 1st respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent from the date of filing of the Maintenance Case. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned legal aid counsel, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. B. Parameshwara Rao, learned legal aid counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submitted that the learned trial Court failed to take into account the financial capacity of the 1st respondent and mechanically passed the order, though there is ample evidence of willful desertion by the 1st respondent on her own volition without any just cause; the petitioner does not have movable or immovable properties and not pursuing any avocation and he is unable to pay the maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and urged to allow the revision case. 4. Per contra, Ms. G.S. Harshitha, learned counsel representing Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, submits that the learned Trial Court, having appraised the evidence in detail, allowed the maintenance case, granting maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order does not suffer from any illegality and there was no perverse finding; that the petitioner is bound to maintain the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the legally wedded wife and minor daughter of 3 petitioner, and urged to dismiss the petition stating that the petitioner is least bothered to pay the arrears of the maintenance. 5. Ms. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Judge and urged to dismiss the revision case as there are no merits in the revision case. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 7. The point for consideration is: “Whether the order in M.C.No.68 of 2009, dated 24.08.2010, passed by the learned Judge Family Court – cum–Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. The learned Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 4 on behalf of the 1st respondent-wife and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. On behalf of the petitioner- husband, R.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.R.1 was marked. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife and that, 2nd respondent is daughter of them. As seen from the Ex.P.1 – Wedding Card, the 1st respondent and petitioner are wife and husband and Ex.P.2 also reveals the same. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is clear that the petitioner and 1st respondent are husband and wife 4 and the 2nd respondent was born to the petitioner and 1st respondent. The 1st respondent lodged a case in Cr.No.89 of 2009 of II Town Police Station vide Ex.P.5 against the petitioner that he was harassing and subjecting her to cruelty for bringing additional dowry. As the 1st respondent was neglected by the petitioner to maintain, the 1st respondent was constrained to file maintenance case before the learned Judge, Family Court. Even though the petitioner contended that he was not doing any job or avocation and his father was aged about 50 years at that time, suffering from ailments,the petitioner is duty bound to maintain his wife and daughter. The petitioner cannot simply abdicate his responsibility of maintaining his wife on the ground that he does not have any avocation. It is established from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that the petitioner himself neglected the 1st respondent and his daughter without maintaining them. The evidence of R.Ws.1 to 6 is not much helpful to the petitioner to prove his version. The petitioner was unable to prove and establish that 1st respondent was drawing sufficient income on her own and eking her livelihood without subsistence on the earnings of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge, Family Court had rightly considered the evidence adduced by both sides and came to correct conclusion that the petitioner was bound to maintain the respondent Nos.1 and 2. There is no flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The order impugned is not perverse. Hence, the impugned order is sustained. The petitioner – husband shall maintain 5 respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are his wife and minor daughter. There are no merits in the revision case. 10. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ DR. JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO Date: 08.04.2025 MSI 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1701/2010 Date: 08.04.2025 MSI