1 APHC010188232022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3055/2022 Between: Chevireddy Sudhakar Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Chevirreddy Swapna and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. M CHALAPATI RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3055/2022 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner, seeking to quash the order passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District in Crl.R.P.No.46 of 2019 dated 14.02.2022. 2. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the 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 learned Trial Judge after appreciation of the facts on record, rightly rejected the maintenance to the wife observing that she is working as a Teacher in Private School and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. Learned counsel would further submit that she preferred revision in Crl.R.P.No.46 of 2019 on the file of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, wherein, the learned Sessions Judge awarded maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/husband preferred the present petition. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is working as Teacher in Government School and getting Rs.80,000/- per month. He has to maintain his parents. He is paying maintenance to their minor son @ Rs.5,000/- per month who is staying with the wife. Learned counsel finally submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the learned Sessions Judge rightly interfered in the revision and awarded the maintenance to the wife @ Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel would further submit that learned Trial Judge ought to have granted maintenance to the wife since the amount which the wife is getting by working in Private School is meager and she could not live with that meager amount. That apart, she has to take care of the son who is in her custody. Learned counsel would further submit that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.46 of 2019 dated 14.02.2022, this Court does not find any merits to interfere in that order. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, learned Trial Judge ought to have visualized the situation, whether the wife was getting meager income by working as Teacher in a Private School. Needless to say that the husband has to pay maintenance to the wife to see that she can live on par with status of the husband. In the present case, the petitioner/husband is working as Teacher in Government School and getting Rs.80,000/- per month, there cannot be any excuse for him to evade the payment of maintenance to the wife under the premise that she is getting some meager income by working as Teacher in Private School. In that view, the impugned Order does not brook any interference of this Court. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 4 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.01.2025 UPS 5 19 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3055 of 2022 Dt.24.01.2025 UPS