APHC010439642013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION Between: 1. Maddi Poli Reddy, S/ Street, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. 1. Maddi Lalitha Kumari, W/o Polireddy, r/o 2 Near Yatri Nivas, Mvp 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Revision filed under Section 397/401 of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of ground of the Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the order of the IV Addl. Chief Met Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in D in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 on the file of the I Add Visakhapatnam, dated 10.04.2013. IA NO: 1 OF 2013 (CRLRCMP 2408 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order in D.V.C.No.16 of 2010, on the file of the IV Magistrate, Visakhapatnam as confirmed in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.04.2013, pending disposal of the Crl.R.C. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1559/2013 , S/o Late Taatayya Reddy, r/o 4-24-10, Street, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND Maddi Lalitha Kumari, W/o Polireddy, r/o 2-11-8, Tataiah Reddy Nagar, Colony, Visakhapatnam. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of ground of the Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the order of the IV Addl. Chief Met Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in D.V.C.No.16 of 2010, dated 21.09.2011 as confirmed in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.04.2013. (CRLRCMP 2408 OF 2013 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend No.16 of 2010, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan akhapatnam as confirmed in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.04.2013, pending IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO 10, Maddivari ...PETITIONER 8, Tataiah Reddy Nagar, The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of ground of the Crl.R.C., to this Hon'ble Court against the order of the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan No.16 of 2010, dated 21.09.2011 as confirmed Metropolitan Sessions Judge, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Chief Metropolitan akhapatnam as confirmed in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 on the file of the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 10.04.2013, pending 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SURYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Y SUDHAKAR 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/husband, assailing the judgment dated 10.04.2013 in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011, passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’). By the said order, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal by confirming the order dated 21.09.2011 passed in D.V.C.No.16 of 2010 by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: The petitioner married the respondent on 30.08.1996 at Visakhapatnam, as per Hindu rites. The marriage was consummated, and she joined the respondent at Pathankot in September 1996. At the time of marriage, the respondent and his family received ₹60,000 as dowry, ₹5,000 as Adapaduchu Lanchanam, along with a gold chain, a gold ring (1.5 tulas), and a Bajaj scooter. Furthermore, household items worth ₹50,000, including a TV, tape recorder, fan, mixer, and iron box, were also provided upon demand. The couple lived together for three years in Pathankot and four years in Jalandhar. Following the death of the respondent’s brother, further dowry demands were made, including a colour TV, double cot, dining table, and cash of ₹50,000. 3 The petitioner’s parents declined the cash demand. Subsequently, the respondent and his family began to harass and physically abuse the petitioner. On 15.06.2003, the respondent's mother assaulted her, and the following day, the respondent beat her in an inebriated state. Following intervention by caste elders on 22.06.2003, the respondent promised to treat her well and took her back to Jalandhar. The respondent, a retired Indian Army personnel, earned ₹15,000 per month and now receives a pension, along with an additional ₹18,000 from employment as a security guard. He also earns ₹3,000 per month as rent from his share in a property at Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam. Until retirement, ₹2,024 was deducted monthly from his salary for the petitioner’s maintenance. Post-retirement, he has refused to maintain the petitioner, prompting her to file this petition. 4. The respondent filed a counter, denied all the material allegations in the petition, including the giving or demanding of dowry, the alleged harassment by him and his family, and the claims of physical abuse; the parties have been living separately since 2003, and hence, the provisions of the Act are not applicable; the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia even before the marriage, which was deliberately concealed; she frequently abused him and caused public disturbances, including at railway stations and roads; despite arranging treatment from several doctors, including Dr.G.Bhagyarao (who allegedly treated her even before marriage), her condition did not improve, making cohabitation untenable and unsafe; due to these issues, he filed O.P.No.577/2003 for divorce; in retaliation, the petitioner filed O.P.No.63/2004 for restitution of conjugal rights; while his petition was dismissed, the petitioner’s was allowed; an appeal is currently pending before the Hon’ble High Court; the petitioner also filed a maintenance claim under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which resulted in an interim maintenance order of ₹1,000 per month, later stayed by the Hon’ble High Court; the petitioner misled the Family Court during those proceedings; he is now retired, 4 unemployed, and receives a monthly pension of approximately ₹5,000; he resides in a two-room house (30 sq. yards) and denies earning any rental income from it; since maintenance has already been adjudicated and stayed, and as the parties have been living apart for over seven years, the petitioner is not entitled to any further reliefs such as residence or protection orders; there is no supporting material for the monetary claims and he has suffered severe mental and physical trauma due to the petitioner’s alleged mental illness. 5. During the trial, the petitioner was examined as PW.1, and Exs.P1 and P2 documents were marked. The respondent was examined RW.1, however, no documents were marked on his behalf. 6. The Trial Court, after hearing both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the petition, directed the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to the petitioner, payable on or before the 10th day of each month, commencing from September 2011. Additionally, the Trial Court granted relief under Section 19 of the Act and directed the respondent to pay ₹500 per month towards rent for alternate accommodation, payable on or before the 10th day of each month commencing from September 2011, and dismissed the remaining reliefs sought by the petitioner. 7. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2011 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2010, the respondent/husband filed Criminal Appeal No.164 of 2011 before the 1st Appellate Court. After considering the arguments advanced on both sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 10.04.2013 passed in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011, the appellant/husband has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 8. Now, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the impugned order of the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, granting maintenance of ₹2,500 per month and ₹500 per month towards rent for alternate 5 accommodation to the petitioner from September 2011, is legally sustainable? 2) Does the order of the Trial Court, as upheld by the 1st Appellate Court, warrant any interference? POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 9. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court”. 10. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re- examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for concluding guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 11. It is undisputed that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and their marriage took place on 30.08.1996 according to Hindu religious rites and customs; they resided jointly at Pathankot and Jalandhar; the petitioner served in the Indian Army, retired in 2009, and has been receiving a pension since then. The petitioner, as PW.1, and the respondent, as RW.1, filed their respective chief affidavits, reiterating all the averments made in the petition and the counter, respectively. As reflected from the record, the petitioner is unemployed and has no independent income. The respondent also failed to 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 6 produce any documents showing his post-retirement pension. Considering these factors, the Trial Court held that the petitioner is entitled to monthly maintenance of ₹2,500. 12. The petitioner contends that on 14.09.2003, the respondent assaulted her at her parents’ residence without any justifiable cause and subsequently issued a notice dated 24.09.2003 containing false allegations. In response, she issued a reply dated 20.10.2003, indicating that the petitioner and the respondent had been living separately since 2003. Upon considering the submissions of both parties, the Trial Court held that it is not necessary to grant protection orders in favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court observed that, due to ongoing disputes and pending matters between the parties, granting the petitioner a residence order to live in the respondent’s house was not advisable. Accordingly, the Trial Court awarded the petitioner ₹500 under Section 18 of the Act as rent for alternative accommodation. The petitioner/wife has not questioned the propriety of the order refusing to grant a protection order and residence order. Thus, the said findings have attained finality. 13. The Trial Court noted that the respondent, in his evidence, stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance, which was granted at ₹1,000 per month but later stayed by the High Court. The Family Court dismissed the petition for arrears. However, the petitioner informed the Court that the Army authorities had been deducting maintenance amounts. The parties have been living separately since 2003, and the petitioner admittedly received maintenance through the Army authorities of the respondent for some time, which stopped on 01.04.2009. The petitioner's counsel contends that the stoppage of payments indicates a failure to provide maintenance, amounting to domestic violence. 14. Regarding the income, the petitioner claims that the respondent receives ₹15,000 per month as a pension, earns ₹18,000 per month as a 7 security guard, and receives ₹3,000 per month as rental income. However, the petitioner did not submit any documents to support these claims. The respondent, on the other hand, stated that he receives only about ₹5,000 per month as pension and resides in a two-room house on a 30 sq. yard plot, generating no rental income. He further alleged that the petitioner has a share in two buildings, D.No.2-11-8 and D.No.4-26/10/1 and in agricultural land measuring Ac.2.36 cents in S.No.6/1 and 6/2 of the same area, from which she earns ₹50,000 per month. However, the respondent did not produce any evidence to substantiate these claims. 15. The Trial Court noted that the petitioner, through Ex.P1, a letter dated 03.10.2008, had sought revision of the maintenance allowance, which was increased from ₹1,862 to ₹2,024 with effect from 01.10.2008. Ex.P2, dated 19.03.2009, indicates that a demand draft dated 16.03.2009 for ₹25,333 was issued in her favour towards arrears for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009. It was further intimated that the maintenance allowance would be discontinued from 01.04.2009, as her husband was proceeding on premature retirement with effect from 31.03.2009 (A/N). The Trial Court further observed that Ex.P1 confirmed the petitioner was receiving ₹2,024 during the respondent’s service, and Ex.P2 corroborated the receipt of maintenance. Even the respondent admitted that when he raised this before the Family Court, the petition for arrears of maintenance was dismissed. The authenticity of Exs.P1 and P2, as well as the disbursement of payments by the army authorities, remains undisputed. 16. The respondent has neither submitted any evidence of his income nor demonstrated that the petitioner can support herself without her husband's assistance. The order of the 1st Appellate Court indicates that the respondent’s counsel argued that he receives a pension of ₹5,000 and is unemployed. 8 17. The 1st Appellate Court has duly observed that the appellant, who is the husband (respondent) in this matter, is physically and mentally capable of undertaking employment as a security guard. It is significant to note that the appellant is relatively young, being approximately 38 years of age, and further, that he is a retired army personnel. Such a background inherently implies a certain level of physical fitness, discipline, and skill, which would reasonably qualify him for employment as a security guard. Moreover, it is important to note that the appellant has not alleged or demonstrated any physical deformity, disability, or medical incapacity that would prevent him from engaging in such employment. In the absence of any such contention or evidence to the contrary, the Court is justified in concluding that the appellant is indeed capable of securing and maintaining gainful employment as a security guard, thereby earning a substantial and reasonable income. In addition, the revision petitioner, the husband, has notably failed to provide any explanation or justification for the non-production of records relating to his pension income. Given his status as a retired army personnel, this pension income constitutes a material financial resource, which ought to have been disclosed. Consequently, considering the appellant's age, professional background, absence of any disability, and the undisclosed pension income, this Court accepts the view of both Courts that the appellant is in a position to earn a livelihood through appropriate employment and is therefore obligated to fulfill his financial responsibilities. 18. Considering the material on record, the Trial Court rightly granted maintenance. Considering the cost of living and his status as a retired employee in the Indian Army, this Court finds the maintenance amount awarded neither excessive, arbitrary, nor unjustified, but consistent with judicial precedents and the objective of ensuring a reasonable standard of living for the dependent party. Given the respondent's financial position, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the maintenance quantum determined by both Courts. 9 19. Given the discussions above and the findings, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that both Courts have rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order and judgment, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order and judgment are neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the points are answered. 20. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons articulated above, Criminal Revision Case No.1559 of 2013 is hereby dismissed. The judgment dated 10.04.2013 in Crl.A.No.164 of 2011 passed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, affirming the order dated 21.09.2011 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2010 passed by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is hereby confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 25.09.2025 SAK 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1559 OF 2013 Dated: 25.09.2025 SAK