APHC010528882014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1578/2014 Between: 1. GURRAM SURENDRA NADHA REDDY, CHITTOOR DT., S/O RAMACHANDRA REDDY, OCC: COOLIE, KOTAPALLI VILLAGE, H/O PILER TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P REP BY P P HYD ANR, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF A.P. 2. GURRAM KUSUMA KUMARI VEDA KUSUMA, W/O SURENDRANADHA REDDY, 13-1-37, P.K. LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Criminal Revision case is being filed against the order and decree in M.C. No. 14 of 2011, dated 02.05.2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District in granting maintenance. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(CRLRCMP 2579 OF 2014 Petition 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 release the motor cycle bearing No. AP.27 K 2297 produced before the Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’), against the Order in M.C.No.14 of 2011 dated 02.05.2014 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in M.C.No.14 of 2011. 3. Brief facts about the case are that, the Petitioner married the 1st Respondent on 22.08.1997 and that her parents gave cash of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, 200 grams of gold ornaments, house hold articles worth Rs.30,000/- and incurred marriage expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-. They lived happily for some time. The respondent shifted from Kotapalli to Tirupati to start dairy business. The respondent without the knowledge of the petitioner had forcibly taken away his children to Kotapalli from Tirupati and hence disputes arose. Though several mediations were held through D.Venkatramana Reddy, the respondent had refused for the mediation. It is further alleged that the respondent treated the petitioner cruelly and by 3 suppressing all these facts, he had issued false notice dated 06.09.2010, asking the petitioner to join matrimonial home and when the petitioner ready to join him, he refused to take her to his matrimonial home and neglected her. Hence, the petitioner filed maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month towards her food, shelter and medical expenses etc. 4. After careful consideration of the material and hearing upon both sides, the trial Court, partly allowed the M.C. No.14 of 2011 awarding Rs.3,000/- per month to the Petitioner towards maintenance from the respondent and further directed the respondent to pay the awarded amount on or before 5th of every month to the Petitioner, and dismissed the rest of the reliefs as claimed. 5. Aggrieved on the trial Court’s order, the Revision Petitioner/Respondent preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent left the matrimonial home without informing either the petitioner, his elders, or any of his relatives, and has since been residing separately. He further contends that the maintenance amount of ₹3,000/- per month awarded to the 2nd respondent by the Court below is excessive and unwarranted, particularly in light of the finding that the petitioner does not have a sufficient source of income. It is also submitted that the Court failed to consider that the 2nd respondent is engaged in a vegetable business in Tirupati, from which she earns approximately ₹10,000/- per month, whereas the petitioner has no independent source of income. Additionally, learned counsel argues that the Court below did not adequately consider the submissions made during the proceedings before the trial Court before passing the impugned order of maintenance. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the Respondent No.1/State and none appeared for the respondent No.2/wife. 4 8. 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 1st Appellate Court”. 9. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam2, held that: 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure." 10. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. The State of Chattisgarh3, thus: "8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be wellfounded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings." 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 5 11. As seen from the record, the following facts are not disputed: The Petitioner married the 1st Respondent on 18.06.2011. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children. They lived happily for some time and after failing of mediations and after the petitioner failed to let the 2nd respondent to join the matrimonial home, the 2nd respondent herein filed an application for maintenance. 12. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, while on behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. The petitioner relied on Exs.P1 to P3, which consist of legal notices and postal acknowledgements. These documents establish that legal notices were sent to the respondents and duly received by them; however, such documents may not be materially helpful in determining the issues in the present case. The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1, and the respondent examined himself as R.W.1. The record further indicates that both parties submitted their respective contentions in the form of chief affidavits. 13. The respondent contended that the petitioner is engaged in the vegetable business in Tirupati and is earning approximately ₹1,000/- to ₹1,500/- per day. However, the trial Court rejected this claim on the ground that the respondent failed to produce any independent witnesses to substantiate the allegation. Nonetheless, the trial Court noted that P.W.1 is earning ₹1,000/- to ₹1,500/- per day through her involvement in the vegetable business. 14. As contended, the petitioner examined one D. Venkataramana Reddy, who is said to have mediated between the petitioner and the respondent. His evidence establishes that he attempted to mediate the dispute at the respondent’s residence; however, the respondent did not agree to the mediation. With respect to the financial capacity of the respondent, D. 6 Venkataramana Reddy was cross-examined, during which he admitted that he had not produced any documentary evidence to support the claim that the respondent had borrowed ₹4,00,000/- as a loan. It was also revealed that the respondent had sustained losses in his business. Additionally, the respondent examined one P. Ramakrishnaiah to support his claim that mediation efforts were also undertaken on his behalf. Although both the petitioner and the respondent were examined, the testimony of the mediators did not through light on the financial status of the parties. The respondent further examined R.W.3, who is also said to have acted as a mediator in the matter. 15. With regard to the financial capacity of the revision petitioner, the trial Court has discussed the evidence in detail at paragraph No.15 of its judgment. The petitioner contends that the respondent owns a two-portion house at Kotapalli, one portion of which is rented out for ₹2,000/- per month. It is further asserted that the respondent possesses approximately Ac.1.50 cents of dry land and Ac.1.50 cents of wet land at Kotapalli, and that he recently sold a portion of his land for ₹8,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, the respondent is earning between ₹10,000/- to ₹15,000/- per month. The trial Court observed that P.W.1 stated that the respondent is cultivating his land using a tractor, although she was unable to provide the registration number of the vehicle. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that he is employed as a gardener in the estate of one G.V. Srinadha Reddy, who is also extending financial assistance for the education of the respondent’s two sons. 16. On the other hand, the respondent contended that he is suffering from diabetes; however, no medical records were produced to substantiate this claim. The trial Court noted the admission of P.W.1 that the respondent owns a house and is residing there. Furthermore, the Court recorded that the respondent’s sons are living with him. Taking these facts into consideration, the trial Court awarded maintenance of ₹3,000/-, observing that the respondent’s wife has an independent source of income. Nevertheless, the 7 material on record indicates, to some extent, that the respondent owns a two- portion house and cultivates a portion of land. 17. Having carefully considered the prevailing circumstances and in light of the established finding that the respondent’s daily earnings approximate Rs.300/-, this Court is inclined to hold that the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded in favour of the wife cannot be regarded as excessive or disproportionate. The awarded amount is deemed just and reasonable, reflecting a balanced assessment of the respondent’s financial capacity and the legitimate needs of the spouse. 18. Given the discussions above and findings and considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge has rendered a judicious and well-reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order is not perversive or illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. 19. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Order dated 02.05.2014 in M.C.No.14 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 29.07.2025 M K K 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1578 of 2014 Date: 29.07.2025 M K K 115