APHC010397682008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1522/2008 Between: Kudri Meri, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KODURU RAMA CHANDRA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 22.08.2008 in F.C.O.P.No.6 of 2008 (M.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, by the learned Family Court, Nellore), dismissing the maintenance petition file for grant of Rs.3,000/- per month. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1522 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, submits that the learned Court below ought to have seen that the 2nd respondent herein was addicted to bad vices and ill-treated the petitioner physically and mentally and the petitioner endured all the suffering, ill-treatment meted out by the 2nd respondent with a fond hope that the 2nd respondent would mend his way and when there was no change in his behavior and attitude, the petitioner was compelled to take shelter at her sister’s house at Kapadipalem, Nellore; the learned Court below simply relied upon the contentions raised by the 2nd respondent and erroneously dismissed the petition; in fact, the 2nd respondent only to avoid the maintenance of the petitioner made false, frivolous and unscrupulous allegations without any ample evidence; the learned Court below failed to note that the 2nd respondent who was addicted to bad vices even did not take any care of the children, which resulted in death of one son and a daughter and when the petitioner protested the illegal behavior and attitude of the 2nd respondent, he went to the extent of vacating the house and shifted to Kudiri Village along with surviving daughter. 3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the impugned order does suffer from any infirmities; there was no misreading of evidence; and there was no material irregularity in the impugned order and urged to dismiss the revision case. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1522 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. No representation for the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, dismissed the maintenance case on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent No.2 neglected to maintain her. 7. The learned Judge observed that the respondent No.2 was working as an attender and after compulsory deductions, he was getting Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month and the respondent No.2 was a cancer patient vide Ex.R1- medical record, he needed to get constant medical checkups and taking medicines. His two daughters are living with him and one of whom he performed the marriage by incurring necessary expenses. He was also in need to perform the marriage of his second daughter. Therefore, the learned Court observed that the respondent No.2 was not having sufficient means to support the petitioner. The learned Trial Court also observed that the petitioner was an able-bodied woman from an ordinary family and can also do manual work to earn her livelihood. The learned Trial Court by quoting Section 125 (4) of ‘ the Cr.P.C.,’ observed that the petitioner herself voluntarily withdrawn from the company of the respondent No.2 by developing illicit intimacy with one Mariyadas. The learned Trial Court observed that the petitioner, being the wife, was living in adultery and she herself, without any 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1522 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 sufficient reason, refused to live with the respondent No.2. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was constrained to dismiss the petition. 8. As seen from the impugned order, there are no material irregularities. The order is not erroneous. There was no material irregularity and flagrant violation or failure of justice. There are no merits in the case as there was no misreading of evidence. The impugned order is required to be sustained. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 01.04.2025 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1522 of 2008 Dated 01.04.2025 147 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1522 of 2008 Date:01.04.2025 RSI