APHC010497972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: N Lokesh Smt Kuppala Swetha and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T B L MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following The present revision case has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in Crl.MP.No.17 of 2024 in FCOP.No.337 of 2023, was allowed and interim maintenanc at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. 2. The parties in this revision shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the FCOP for convenient and clarity. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends tha petitioner in the FCOP is his 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1136/2024 ...PETITIONER AND Smt Kuppala Swetha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): T NAGARJUNA REDDY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER: The present revision case has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, of 2024 in FCOP.No.337 of 2023, whereby the said petition allowed and interim maintenance was granted to the 2nd petitioner therein per month. The parties in this revision shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the FCOP for convenient and clarity. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends tha is his wife and the 2nd petitioner is their daughter. The IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) The present revision case has been preferred against the order passed V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, said petition petitioner therein The parties in this revision shall be referred to as they are arrayed Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the 1st petitioner is their daughter. The 2 1st petitioner is drawing more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month, whereas the respondent is drawing Rs.78,208/- per month. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, by observing that when both the parents are earning persons, they have equal responsibility to take care and provide maintenance, education expenses etc., to their daughter and the respondent cannot avoid the maintenance to the 2nd petitioner by contending that the 1st petitioner is getting more salary than him. The learned Judge, Family Court had recorded appropriate reasons in negativing the contention of the respondent. 5. As seen from the order impugned, the respondent (petitioner herein) is drawing Rs.78,208/- per month. The 2nd petitioner is aged about eight years. Considering the said fact that the 2nd petitioner requires expenditure for her food, shelter, clothes, education and tuition fee, the Family Court fixed the interim maintenance at the Rs.10,000/- per month. 6. By taking into consideration of the material on record, this Court views that it cannot be said that the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court is on the higher side. As reflected in the record, the 1st petitioner (1st respondent herein / wife) has not preferred any Revision against the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, which granted a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner (2nd respondent herein). 7. Upon considering the income of the revision petitioner, I find that the learned Judge, Family Court has appropriately determined the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. 8. Given the aforesaid discussions and findings and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge, Family Court, has passed well-reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of 3 both parties. There being no perversity or illegality in the impugned Order and no interference is called for. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is hereby dismissed. The order dated 24.08.2024 passed in connection with Crl.M.P.No.17 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.337 of 2023 by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is hereby affirmed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 08.04.2025 VJL / SAK 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1136/2024 Date: 08.04.2025 SAK