1 CRL.P. No.3769 OF 2025 APHC010146172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3769/2025 Between: Gudipaty Surya Teja, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Siripurapu Venkata Amar Deepthi and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 2 CRL.P. No.3769 OF 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3769 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 03.02.2025, in Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.159 of 2022, passed by the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada, the present criminal petition is filed 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition are thatrespondents 1 and 2 have filed Crl.M.P. No.474 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.159 of 2022, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month for the 1st respondent and Rs.20,000/- for the 2nd respondent. The said Crl.M.P. was allowed in part, directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd respondent alone and further directing the payment of interim maintenance on or before the 5th day of every month. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to take care of his aged parents, whose welfare is the responsibility of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has financial commitments, including repayment of a housing loan, which requires him to pay equated monthly installments to the bank. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the record. 3 CRL.P. No.3769 OF 2025 5. The learned XIV Additional Sessions Judge has considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents and the affidavit submitted by the 1st respondent and noted the salary drawn by the 1st respondent for her employment in a software company. Upon considering the material available on record, granted interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent alone since the 2nd respondent is aged 6 years, and allowed the Crl.M.P. in part 6. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.08.04.2025 BV