1 APHC010157992022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3250/2022 Between: Smt.peddinti Hemalatha and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND Smt Peddinti Srinivas and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners, aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2022 passed in Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2018 on the file of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram. 2 2. Heard Sri K.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the claim of maintenance of the petitioner No.1, who is the wife of respondent No.1. Learned counsel would further submit that even for the children, maintenance was granted is a meager amount. Learned counsel would further submit that the only reason assigned by the learned trial Judge to discard the maintenance to the wife is on the point that she herself left the matrimonial house. Learned counsel finally submits that even the District Court in revision could not understand the grievance of the wife and children, who are stayed away from respondent No.1 and suffering a lot. Learned counsel prays to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, which was confirmed in revision by awarding reasonable maintenance to the wife and children for their sustenance. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 opposed the petition and would submit that the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the claim for the wife since it is her fault to leave the matrimonial house. Learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the revision. Learned counsel finally submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders regarding the claim of the wife and children. 3 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned order, which was passed by the learned trial Judge, which was confirmed by the learned District Judge in revision, would show that there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of respondent No.1. 6. Admittedly, the children are under the care and custody of the mother. It is needless to say that wife, children and parents are eligible to get maintenance from the husband, father and son, whatever the case may be to the tune of the amount which is required to live on par with the status of the person, who has obligation to maintain them. In that view, the material would show that the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month was granted as maintenance to petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The age of the children / petitioner Nos.2 to 4 would show that they are aged about 10 and 9 years respectively at the time of professing revision by their mother as a guardian. It is to the knowledge of everyone that the mother has to take care of the children for food, clothing, education, medical apart from other necessities and to grow up the children, on par with the status of their father. 7. Coming to the claim of the wife, it was denied by the learned trial Judge observing that she left the matrimonial house voluntarily. Be that as it may, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself, from 4 the husband. Despite having a decree in favour of the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, such being the position denying the maintenance to the wife on the point that there is no cause for her to leave the matrimonial house, is not tenable. In the light of the aforementioned premise, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, which was simply confirmed in revision, is not sustainable under law. 8. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed, granting maintenance to the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 @ Rs.4,000/- per month each. Respondent No.1 is permitted to pay the arrears of maintenance in the light of the present order in installments within a period of six months from the date of the revision order i.e. 07.02.2022. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ DR. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 19.02.2025 ARR 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3250/2022 Dt. 19.02.2025 ARR