APHC010265782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4961 of 2022 Between: M.Dinesh Reddy, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 by the Petitioner/Respondent seeking quashment of the Order dated 08.03.2022 passed in C.R.P.No.24 of 2020 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are revision Petitioners 1 and 2 in CRP No.24 of 2020. The marriage of Petitioner herein and respondent No.2 was performed at Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vellore on 20.10.2009 without consent of the parents of both sides. During wedlock, they blessed with a baby girl (respondent No.3 herein). Due to disputes between the couple, respondent No.2/wife gave a complaint against the Petitioner herein and his family 1 in short ‘the Code’ 2 members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC vide CC No.88 of 2016 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor vide Order dated 04.07.2018 acquitted the accused(petitioner herein). Respondent No.2 herein filed maintenance case under Section 125 of the Code vide MC No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittoor. The Learned Magistrate by Order dated 06.03.2020 allowed MC No.1 of 2017 and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- to respondent No.2(wife) and Rs.2000/- to respondent No.3 (child). Aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a revision in C.R.P.No.24 of 2020 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, seeking enhancement of maintenance granted by the Trial Court. The Learned Sessions Judge by Order dated 08.03.2022 allowed the Petition in part by modifying the order dated 06.03.2020 passed in MC No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor and enhanced the monthly maintenance from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- for respondent No.2 herein (wife) and Rs.2000/- to Rs.3500/- to respondent No.3(girl child). Impugning the said Order, the present Criminal Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Smt.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. Perused the material on record. 3 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the case lodged against the Petitioner herein(husband) under Section 498-A IPC by the respondent No.2/wife was ended in acquittal. It is the evidence of respondent No.2/Wife before the Court that she was necked out from the House. Whereas, in Criminal case, she deposed that she herself left the matrimonial house. Further, Petitioner/husband filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending for adjudication. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner is not in a position to pay maintenance, which was awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the revisional Court i.e., Rs.5000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,500/- to the child, who is now aged about 16 years and pursuing her studies. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the Learned Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence on record rightly granted monthly maintenance to the wife and the girl child at Rs.4000/- and Rs.2000/- and in revision, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the monthly maintenance at Rs.5000/- to the wife and Rs.3,500/- to the girl child. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no grounds to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below under Section 482 of the Code. Hence, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 failed to prove the income of the Petitioner before the Trial Court. Learned counsel would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 4 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 8. Considering the submissions made and on a keen perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he denied the paternity of the child. Respondent No.3 is a girl child. It is represented that she may be aged bout 16 years old by this time and she has been pursuing studies and she is in the custody of her mother. This Court does not find any warranting circumstances to interfere in the concurrent findings passed by the Trial Court confirmed rather enhancing the maintenance by the Learned Sessions Judge. 9. In that view, the order passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge in revision are well reasoned orders and there is no contra material to interfere in the matter while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the code. This Criminal Petition deserves dismissal. 10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 17.02.2025 Mjl/* 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4961 of 2022 17.02.2025 Mjl/*