APHC010563442009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1484 OF 2009 Between: 1. YELLABILLI VENKATA RAO, S/O APPALASWAMY, R/O D.NO. 12-56, ASHOK NAGAR, CHINAMUSHIDIVADA POST, PENDURTY MANDAL, ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT Y ROJA RAMANI 3 OTHERS, W/O VENKATA RAO, RESIDING AT FATHERS HOUSE M.APPALASWAMY, S/O LATE YERRA APPANNA, D.NO. 20-5-9, DUGGAVANIPALEM, R.H.COLONY, 2. YELLABILLI AJAKUMAR, S/O VENKATA RAO, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. Y. ROJA RAMANI, R/O D.NO. 20-5-9, DUGGAVANIPALEM, R.H.COLONY, 3. YELLABILLI ANUSHA, D/O VENKATA RAO, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. Y. ROJA RAMANI, R/O D.NO. 20-5-9, DUGGAVANIPALEM, R.H.COLONY, 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. ...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 present this Memorandum of Crl.R.C., aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2009 made in M.C.No.95 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, the above-named petitioner humbly begs. IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLRCMP 2052 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may 2 be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 09.06.2009 in MC.No.95 of 2005 passed by the Hon'ble Addl. Family Court Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the main Crl.R.C.. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to recall the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in the above CrI.R.C No. 1484 of 2009 and restore the order passed in CrI.R.C M.P No. 2052 of 2009 dated 09.09.09 pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR 2. - 3. 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 Order dated 09.06.2009 in M.C.No.95 of 2005, passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the Family Court’). By the said order, the Family Court allowed the petition with costs, directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to each petitioner from the date of filing the petition. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Family Court. 3 3. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are their minor children. The marriage was solemnized on 05.05.1996 under the Christian Marriage Act. Initially, the couple lived together, but the respondent began demanding additional dowry. When the 1st petitioner refused, he forcibly drove her out, leaving her no option but to return to her parental home. The respondent, employed as a Kalasi in the S.M.S. Department, R.E.D., Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, earns Rs. 8,000/- per month. His father, employed at the Shipyard, earns Rs. 15,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient means, the respondent has failed to provide any maintenance. Due to continued harassment, the 1st petitioner filed a maintenance case on 15.12.1999. The Family Court awarded Rs.500/- per month. Subsequently, she filed M.P.No.409/2000 and O.P.No.309/2000 for recovery of arrears. Following a compromise mediated by elders, the couple briefly reconciled and set up a separate household, resulting in the birth of the 3rd petitioner on 10.12.2000. However, disputes resurfaced. In November 2004, the respondent abandoned the rented home and has since failed to provide financial support to the petitioners. He later filed O.P.No.746/2004, but continues to neglect his legal and financial responsibilities. 4. The respondent filed a counter, denying all the allegations, and contending that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with their religious customs, and that the claims in the petition are false. He denies explicitly ever demanding additional dowry or driving the 1st petitioner out of the matrimonial home. He further denies that any separate household was established at the demand of the 1st petitioner or that such an arrangement caused resentment. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner neglected household responsibilities, refused to cook, and 4 regularly abused him and his parents. He claims he suffered harassment at her hands. After an accident on 15.09.1998, which required surgery and seven months of hospitalization, the 1st petitioner allegedly did not visit or care for him, even during his three months of bed rest. He asserts that due to ongoing ill feelings, the 1st petitioner voluntarily withdrew from his company and moved to her parents' home without informing him. When he later requested her to return, she refused. Additionally, he claims that on 30.10.2004, at her instigation, her parents and brother assaulted him, causing injuries that required hospitalization until 17.11.2004. The respondent contends that the 1st petitioner left of her own accord and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance. 5. During the course of the trial, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1, and PWs.2 to 4 were examined on her behalf. However, no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent was examined as RW.1, and Ex.B.1 was marked on his behalf. 6. The Trial court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition and directed the respondent/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to each petitioner from the date of filing the petition. 7. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2009 in M.C.No.95 of 2005, the 1st respondent/husband, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 8. Now, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the impugned order for granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of the filing of the petition to each petitioner is legally sustainable in law? 5 2) Does the order passed by the Family Court warrant any interference? POINTS NO.1 AND 2: 9. It is undisputed that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, while the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are their minor son and daughter, respectively. The petitioners were awarded maintenance at the rate of ₹1,500/- per month each. The respondent was examined as RW.1. During cross-examination, RW.1 deposed that he had filed an O.P. seeking restitution of conjugal rights, requesting the 1st petitioner to rejoin him; it appears that the said O.P. is still pending. 10. In the counter filed by the respondent/husband, he explicitly contends that his marriage with the 1st petitioner was solemnized in accordance with the rites and customs of their religion. It is further averred that, due to strained relations between them, the 1st petitioner withdrew from the respondent's company and began residing separately with her parents. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home without any justification. The 1st petitioner has explained the reasons for the discord between them. According to her evidence, a dispute arose between her and the family members of RW.1 concerning a drainage channel, which led her parents to lodge a complaint with the police. Consequently, a case was registered against the parents of RW.1. When the 1st petitioner indicated that her parents were unwilling to withdraw the complaint, the respondent allegedly developed resentment towards her and left the house. The respondent has failed to produce any evidence before the Court to disprove the version of events presented by the 1st petitioner. 11. On the other hand, the Family Court, in its order, observed that it is an admitted fact that after the respondent/husband left the matrimonial 6 home, a dispute arose concerning the payment of rent and the continued residence of PW.1 in the house, which belongs to the respondent’s junior paternal uncle. According to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, the owners of the house locked the premises, prompting PW.1 to re-enter the residence by breaking open the lock. The Family Court further noted that it is undisputed that the respondent failed to pay rent after vacating the premises. Relying on this evidence, the Family Court rightly held that it was the respondent who voluntarily withdrew from conjugal life with PW.1. Apart from examining himself as RW.1, the respondent failed to produce any corroborative evidence to support his claim that the petitioners had abandoned the matrimonial home on their own. In view of these facts, the Family Court correctly concluded that, as the petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent, he is legally obligated to provide them with maintenance. 12. To establish his financial capacity, the respondent submitted his pay slips. According to Ex.B1, his salary ranged from ₹36,392/- to ₹54,475/-. However, the respondent also produced other pay slips indicating a lower salary range, from ₹15,000/- to ₹17,000/- per month. He failed to provide any explanation for these fluctuations in salary. 13. Upon a careful evaluation of the respondent’s financial position and the evidence adduced, this Court views that even the respondent’s own admission, accepting the lowest claimed monthly income of ₹15,000, indicates a level of earning that cannot be deemed negligible or insufficient for the purpose of contributing towards spousal or child maintenance. In this context, it is pertinent to examine the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in relation to the respondent’s admitted income. The impugned order directs the payment of monthly maintenance that falls well below one-third of the 7 respondent's stated earnings. This proportion aligns with the well- established legal principle that maintenance typically extends up to one- third of the paying spouse's income, subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount awarded does not appear to be excessive, arbitrary, or unjustified. Instead, it is consistent with judicial precedents and the underlying objective of securing a reasonable standard of living for the dependent party. Considering the financial position of the respondent/husband, the learned Family Court rightly determined the maintenance amount. Therefore, at this stage, no tenable ground exists to warrant interference with the quantum of maintenance as determined by the learned Family Court. 14. It appears that during the pendency of this Criminal Revision Case, petitioners 2 and 3 in the Maintenance Case, namely, the children of the respondent, have attained majority. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner/respondent has deposited a portion of the arrears in compliance with the orders passed by the Family Court, though certain amounts remain outstanding. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that a calculation memo has also been filed. However, this Court is not required to examine the correctness of the said calculation memo. Both parties are at liberty to submit their respective calculation memos before the Family Court, which shall determine the outstanding dues accordingly. 15. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent submits that the revision petitioner will pay any remaining amount due to the petitioners before the Family Court. 16. Having considered the submissions of both parties, it is clarified that each may pursue their respective legal remedies concerning the 8 outstanding arrears in the Maintenance Case, strictly in accordance with established legal procedures. This Court, after thorough examination, finds no procedural irregularity or legal defect in the Family Court's order. The respondent's financial circumstances were duly considered in fixing the maintenance amount. The Family Court's determination is just, fair, and consistent with governing principles. Accordingly, the order of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, is upheld as well-reasoned, and this Court sees no basis to modify or set it aside. 17. Given the discussions above and the findings, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge of the Family Court 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 neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the points are answered. 18. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons articulated above, Criminal Revision Case No.1484 of 2009 is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judge of the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.C. No. 95 of 2005, dated 09.06.2009, is confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 30.08.2025 TJN / SAK 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1484 OF 2009 Dated: 30.8.2025 TJN