APHC010611062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1310/2025 Between: PETTAM JACOB ASESSH, S/O CORNELIUS CARIE BABUCHRISTIAN, AGED 42 YEARS RESIDENT OF D NO 20-16-39BEHIHD-TATE3BANK OF INDIAKAMBALACHERUVU, RAMACHANDRAOPETA,RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. PATTERN ALIAS YEDLA SRUJANA, W/O PATTERN JACOB ASESSH,CHRISTIAN, AGED 35 YEARS.RESIDENT OF D NO 20-16- 39,BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIAKAMBALACHERUVU, RAMACHANDRAOPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 2. PATTERN MARY CRISTINE, D/O PATTERN JACOB ASESSHCHRISTIAN, AGED 12 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D NO 20-16- 39,BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIAKAMBALACHERUVU, RAMACHANDRAOPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 3. PATTERN MICHAEL CARIE, S/O PATTERN JACOB ASEESHCHRISTIAN, AGED 10 YEARS,RESIDENT OF D NO 20-16- 39,BEHIND STATE BANK OF INDIAKAMBALACHERUVU, RAMACHANDRAOPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) against the Order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2024 in FCOP No.149 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Heard Ms.V.V.N.V.Teja, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- granted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is disproportionate to the actual income and capacity of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the said maintenance was granted mechanically by assuming a higher income. It is submitted that the Petitioner works only for six months in a year and his average monthly income was incorrectly computed by distributing the income over 12 months, resulting in an inflated and speculative figure. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.1 is well educated and possessed properties worth Rs.50.00 lakhs and working as an insurance agent with Kotak Mahindra regularly earning commission. It is contended that Respondent No.1 has been living in adultery with one Urram Rajeev and a divorce petition filed on this ground by the Petitioner, is pending. Learned counsel would finally submit that the interim maintenance awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3 4. Learned counsel for Respondents opposed the petition and submits that the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned trial Judge is well- reasoned and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court finds that the interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appears to be on the higher side in light of the material placed on record. The contention of the Petitioner that his employment is seasonal in nature and that his income has been assessed by averaging it over twelve months, thereby inflating his actual earning capacity, worth due consideration. 6. Perusal of the material placed on record would further disclose that Crl.M.P.No.658 of 2025 has also been filed by Respondents for enforcement of the order of interim maintenance, wherein, conviction warrant was issued and the Petitioner was also sent to jail. In that view, this Court is of the opinion that the quantum of interim maintenance requires moderation. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the interim maintenance awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is reduced from Rs.75,000/- per month (Rs.25,000 + Rs.50,000/-) to Rs.50,000/- (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.35,000/-) per month respectively, payable from the date of filing of the enforcement petition i.e., Crl.M.P.No.658 of 2025. With regard to the previous arrears for which the Petitioner served the sentence, if any, Respondent Nos.1 and 2, are at liberty to recover the same like a money decree or by following 4 the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.04.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1310 of 2025 Dt.20.04.2026 Dinesh