APHC010331442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7195 OF 2025 Between: Varadha Budha Malleswara Rao, S/o.Veera Kota Venkata Subba Rao, Aged about 38 years, Occ; Charted Accountant, R/o.D.Nq. 2-166, Vuyyala Sthambala Street, Near Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Chinamiram, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Smt. Varadha @ Pothuri Manjusha, W/o. Varadha Budha Malleswara Rao, D/o.Pothuri Jagadeesh, Aged about 31 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o.D.No.S-FA, Sai Man Nivas Apartment, Sivalayam Street, Ayodya, Vijayawada, NTR District. 2. Varadha Giya Aadya, D/o. Varadha Budha Malleswara Rao, Aged about 4 years. (Petitioner No.2 being a minor girl represented by her Mother and Natural Guardian, 1st Petitioner herein) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the order dated 09.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1364 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble Family Court-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Order, dated 09.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1364 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble Family Court-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada, pending disposal of above Criminal Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAVITEJA TALASEELA, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondents : - The Court made the following ORDER : 1 APHC010331442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7195/2025 Between: 1.VARADHABUDHAMALLESWARA RAO. S/O.VEERA KOTA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 00 CHARTED ACCOUNTANT, R/O.D.NO. 2-166, VUYYALASTHAMBALA STREET, NEAR VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, CHINAMIRAM, BHIMAVARAM MANUAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.VARADHA ALIAS POTHURIMANJUSHA, W/0. VARADHABUDHA MALLESWARA RAO, D/O.POTHURI JAGADEESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0.D.N0.3-FA, SAI MAN NIVAS APARTMENT, SIVALAYAM STREET, AYODYA, VIJAYAWADA. NTR DISTRICT. 2.VARADHA GIYA AADYA, D/0. VARADHA BUDHA MALLESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, (PETITIONER N0.2 BEING A MINOR GIRL REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN, 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN AND NATURAL ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the order dated 09.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 in 2 F.C.O.P.No.1364 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble Family Court- Cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada and pass such other order or orders. lANO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend Order, dated 09.05.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1364 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Hon’ble Family Court-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada, pending disposal of above Criminal Petition and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAVITEJA TALASEELA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., has been filed by the petitioner herein seeking quash of order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.200 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1364 of 2023 on the file of learned Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Raviteja Talaseela, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the daughter has been granted by the learned trial Judge towards interim maintenance. Learned counsel would submit that the amount which is granted as interim maintenance is an 3 exaggerated amount and without considering the liabilities of the husband, this Learned counsel would further submit that the petition may be allowed by reducing the amount of maintenance which is granted to the wife. amount has been fixed. Considering the submissions made and p fair look at the impugned order passed by the Iparned trial Judge, there is a clear observation to the effect that the petition would disclose the income of the respondent-husband as Rs.2,00,000/- per month which was not disputed by the husband. The only defence of the husband is that the petitioner-wife is also well qualified person. She has capacity to earn her own income. That was negated by the learned trial Judge. Learned trial Judge specifically mentioned in the order that the respondent-husband is getting Rs.2,00,000/- income per month. Taking into consideration the financial capacity of the husband, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded to the wife towards interim maintenance. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that they are not- pressing for the interim maintenance granted to their daughter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the only objection of the husband challenging the impugned order is that his liabilities were not considered by the trial Court Judge. Needless to mention that the very first obligation and sacred liability of the husband is to maintain his wife, who is staying away from him to lead her life dignifiedly on par with his status. 6. 4 Admittedly, the petitioner herein, who is a husband, is a Chartered Accountant and there is no dispute about his income that he is earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. In that view, ordering him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife is not on higher side. There are no merits to interfere in the impugned order. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1/ N OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court-Cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Raviteja Talaseela, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 14/07/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7195 OF 2025 . 1 1 AUG a® p) sS.Z^9 ★ DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION