APHC010407402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI i li THURSDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 930 OF 2024 Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in I.A No 814 of 2023 in M.C.No.80 of 2022 passed by the learned Family Court - Cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. Between: Andi Srinivasulu, S/o Late Venkata Narasaiah, Aged about 32 years. Residing at 25-2-1316, Police colony. Backside of A.C Subba Reddy Stadium Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Amaravathi 2. Arava Mounika, W/o Andi Srinivasulu, D/o Arava Ratnam, Aged about 29 years, R/o Flat no 201, 3 rd th floor. Royal Paradise, 5 Haranadhapuram Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. line. ? / R/0 Flat no 201. 3. Andi Ammu, D/o Andi Srnivasulu, Aged about 4 years 3rd floor, Royal Paradise, S'" line, Haranadhapuram, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District. Respondent being minor he is Respondent being his natural guardian) nd rep by his mother i.e., 2 ...Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 397 (1) of Cr.P.C & New Section 438 (1) of BNSS u/s 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in I.A. No 814 of 2023 in M.C No 80 of 2022 on the file of the court of the Family Court - Cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI KILARU KRISHNA BUSHAN CHOWDARY The Court made the following order: ■ APHC010407 402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 930/2024 Between: 1.AI\!DI SRINIVASULU, S/0 LATE VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT 25-2-1316, POLICE COLONY, BACKSIDE or- A-C SUBBA REDDY STADIUM NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. I ...PETITIONER ’I ^ AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI 2.ARAV'\ MOUNIKA, W/0 ANDI SRINIVASULU, D/0 ARAVA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO 201,3RD FLOOR. ROYAL PARALYSE, 5TH LINE, HARANADHAPURAM NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLO ^E DISTRICT. 3.ANDI AMMU, D/0 ANDI SRNIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, R/0 FLOOR, ROYAL PARADISE, 5TH LINE, FLAT NO 201,3RD HARANADHAPURAM, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. (3RD RESPONDENT BEING MINOR HE IS REP BY HIS MOTHER I.E., 2ND RESPONDENT BEING HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR •2 €5^ 2.K KRISHNABUSHANCHOWDARY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Assisto'nt Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Cr.P.C.,') seeking to challenge the interim maintenance dated 19.07.2024 in I.A.No.814/2023 in M.C.No.80/2022 by the learned Judge. Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. 3. In the interim maintenance order the Rs. 15,000/- to Respondent No.2/wife learned Trial Court granted and Rs. 10,000/- to Respondent No.3/daughter aged about 4 years. The Petitioner/husband is working as Assistant Engineer, (Roads & Buildings) Department. He is drawing amount of Rs.60,000/- per month. an 4. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case. The Revision challenging the interim maintenance granted by the learned 3 expressed willingness Case is filed only Trial Court. The relation between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 is not denied. It is also an admitted fact that Respondent No.3 is the daughter of Respondent No.2 and Petitioner. The employment of the Petitioner as Assistant Engineer, (Roads & Buildings) Department is also undenied. The learned Trial Court observed that his monthly salary is Rs.85,000/-. Respondent No.2, being the wife of a qualified engineer, claimed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards 3 permanent alimony, pursuant to grant of divorce. Respondent No.2 is living in her parental house. Whether she got any employment or is able to maintain herself is a subject matter of trial before the learned Trial Court. It is also « undenied that Respondent No.3 is being taken care of by Respondent No.2. 5. A crime was registered at the behest of Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner. But it was settled before the Lok Adalat on 08.02.2020, in respect of Crime No.36/2019. From February 2019 onwards, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are not living together as wife and husband. The Petitioner filed a petition vide D.O.P.No.416/2022 before the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Nellore seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The Petitioner contends that his wife/Respondent No.2 did her M.Tech and is working in a Multi-National Company. The Petitioner in his counter contended that Respondent No.2 had been working as computer operator in - APSPDCL and gets an amount of Rs.24,000/- per month. The Petitioner is only the breadwinner of his family. Salary certificate of the Petitioner was produced before the learned Trial Court, wherein it was mentioned that his salary is Rs.63,586/-. Nothing is on the record to show that Respondent No.2 has been maintaining herself. If she is a postgraduate in technology, she would not have the need to work as computer operator in APSPDCL. 7. Of course, all these facts are subject matter of trial and fact-based findings. Ex-facie the impugned order doesn’t suffer from any irregularity. The amount of Rs.25,000/- granted towards temporary maintenance to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 is not exorbitant and is reasonable to maintain two 6. 4 living beings. The order doesn’t suffer from Therefore, it has to be sustained. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The observations made herein are only part of coming to conclusion for disposal of this matter. It does not have any bearing on the disposal of the main M.C. 9. The learned Trial Court is directed to make every endeavour to disposal of the main M.C. as far as possible preferably within a period of six months. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand any illegality or irregularity. 7. 8. closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU 1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1 4K //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court - Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 2. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Kilaru Krishna Bushan Chowdary, Advocate | 5. Two CD Copies Cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, High Court of A.P., Amaravati [OPUC] SRL sree • \, HIGH COURT DATED:04/09/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 930 OF 2024 =4 2 SEP 2025 O DISMISSING THE CRL.R.C.