APHC010237352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 581/2025 Between: 1.P SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH NAIK, S/O. THIPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. D.NO. 12-4-569, SRI RAGHAVA ENCLAVE, ADHARSH NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAM ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI. 2.RAMAVATH DEEPA MAMATHA, W/O. P. SANTHOSH NAIK, D/O. KALA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE MANAGER, R/O. D.NO. 1-68-8/9, MARUTHI NAGAR, KADIRI, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K NAGA PHANINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.SRIDEVI GANTA 3.LEGAL AID The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2022 in F.C.O.P.No.38/2020 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court without following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha2, passed an order of granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra on 04.11.2020 made it law of the land while deciding the maintenance cases that both parties shall file affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. There is no reference in the impugned order about the compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. If the assets and liabilities were mentioned by both parties in the affidavits, it would have aided the learned Trial Court to decide the lis effectively. Both parties have acknowledged that the Petitioner and Respondent before the learned Trial Court has not filed their affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. 3. In the High Court of Patna in Gitanjali devi @ Gitanjali Kumari v. State of Bihar3 observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance was liable to be set aside as the learned Trial Court had not followed the procedure described by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. Citing the 1 the BNSS 2 (2021) 2 SCC 324 3 Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2018, dated 02.12.2023 3 Rajnesh supra the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma4, expressed anguish over non-compliance or improper compliance of directions laid down in Rajnesh supra and directed recirculation of the judgment for compliance thereof. 4. A learned Judge of Madras High Court in Balram Dixit v. Smt. Kiran Dixit5 following the law laid down in Aditi supra set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court concerned and directed both the parties to submit fresh affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.R.C.Nos.533 & 1098 of 2023 in between K.Sreekanth Naik v. P.Nalini set aside the order of the maintenance granted by the learned Family Court while granting some maintenance to the wife directed both parties to comply with the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 7. In the instant case also both the parties have not filed their affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities in detail before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the order is required to be interfered and liable to be set aside directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.13,000/- to the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 shall file fresh affidavits mentioning 4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451 5 Crl.R.C.No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024 4 their assets and liabilities in detail before the learned Trial Court and the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu is directed to consider those affidavits and pass appropriate orders by following due procedure in accordance with law. 8. Until passing of such order, the Petitioner shall continue to pay Rs.13,000/- per month to Respondent No.2 without fail and clearing arrears, if any, within a period of six weeks. Liberty is given to the learned Trial Court to consider, if it is established that the income of the Petitioner/Husband is enhanced, the maintenance granted to Respondent No.2 herein may proportionately be enhanced, as per the merits of the case. 9. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 14.10.2025 VTS