IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2252 OF 2018 AND 2384 OF 2018 CRLRC No: 2252 OF 2018 Between: 1. Karu Swarajya Lakshmi, W/o. Panasayya, Aged: 42 years, Female, D/o.Oggi Subbarao, D.No.60-5-27, Near Sarangadharametta, P&T Colony, Rajamahendravaram. East Godavari District. 2. Karu Ratna Jerushi, D/o. Panasayya, Aged : 14 years, Femlae, R/o.D.No.60-5-27 Rajamahendravaram. E.G.Dist. A.P. Near Sarangadharametta P&T Colony, ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS AND 1. Karu Panasayya, S/o. Yohanu, Aged: 46 years, Male, Occ: Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP School, Yeditha, Mandapet, D.No.2-4-14, 8**^ Ward, Near Kunthidevi temple, Mandapeta, East Godavari District. 2. The State of AP., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and AP. ...RESPONDENTS 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 direct the Respondent to Judgment passed in I.A.NO. 337/2017 in M.C.NO. 3 OF 2008 dated 16-7- 2018 on the file of the Court of the Family Court urn IX Additional District and Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram pay to enhancing the Maintenance amount Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 18,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs.12,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 2 pending disposal of the CrI. R.C. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 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 Order passed in by I.A.NO. 337/2017 in M.C.NO. 3 OF 2008 dated 16-7-2018 on the file of the Court of the Family Court urn District and Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram by enhancing the Maintenance amount Rs. 6,000/- per month to Rs. 18,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 12,000/- per month to the petitioner No. 2 pending disposal of the CrI. R.C. IX Additional CRLRC No: 2384 OF 2018 Between: Karu Panasayya, S/o. Yohanu, Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP School Yeditha, Mandapeta, D.No. 2-4-14, 8‘^ Ward, Near Kunthidevi Temple Mandapeta, East Godavari District ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh , represented through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh 2. Karu Swarajya Lakshmi, W/o Panasayya,42 years, D/o. Oggi Subbarao, D.No. 60-5-27, Near Sarangadharametta, P And T Colony, Rajamahendravaram 3. Karu Ratna Jerushi,D/o Karu Panasayya,aged 14 years,( Respondent No.3 being minor rep., by her mother and natural guardian the 3nd Respondent herein) ...RESPONDENTS 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 set aside the Order dated 16.- 7.2018 in I.A No. 337/2018 in M.C No. 3 of 2018 on the file of Family Court Cum IX Additional District and sessions Court, East Godavari District Rajamahendravarm lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 482 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 extend the interim order dated 24.10.2018 in IA.No.1/2018 in CrI.RC.No.2384/2018 iA NO:2 OF 2023 Between: 1. Karu Swarajya Lakshmi, W/o Panasayya, 42 years, D/o. Oggi Subbarao, D.No. 60-5-27, Near Sarangadharametta, P And T Colony^ Rajamahendravaram 2. Karu Ratna Jerushi,D/o Karu Panasayya,aged 14 years,( Respondent No.3 being minor rep., by her mother and natural guardian the 3 Respondent herein) rd ...PETITIONER’S AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh , represented through Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh 2. Karu Panasayya, S/o Yohanu,aged years,Male,Occ:Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP School, Yeditha, Mandapeta, D.No. 2-4-14, 8th Ward, Near Kunthidevi Temple, about 46 Mandapeta, East Godavari District ...RESPONDENTS 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 direct the Revision petitioner to pay educational expenses of my daughter i.e 3rd Respondent for an amount of Rs. 3,17,165/-/- Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. B P Raju Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. K B Ramanna Dora The Court made the following Common Judgment: f - THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.2252 and 2384 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT: Assailing the Order dated 16.07.2018 in I.A.No.337 of 2017 in M.C.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Family Court-cum- IX Additional District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, the present criminal revision cases are preferred by the wife and husband respectively under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter 2. referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. The shorn of necessary facts leading to file the present 3. revision cases as pleaded by the wife and daughter before the Trial Court are that: i). The wife filed M.C. No. 3 of 2008 seeking maintenance from the husband. The Trial Court awarded monthly maintenance of ?3,000/- to the wife and ? 1,000/- to the daughter. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed Crl.R.C. No. 1123 of 2009 before the High Court. The High Court, by order dated 11.06.2009, reduced the maintenance payable to the wife to ?2,000/- per month. 2 ii) Subsequently, the wife, along with the daughter, filed Crl.M.P. No. 1885 of 2010 seeking enhancement maintenance. By order dated 21.06.2011, the Trial Court enhanced the maintenance to ?4,000/- per month for the wife and ?2,000/- per month for the daughter. Challenging the said order, the husband preferred a revision before the High Court, which was allowed by awarding ?2,000/- per month each to the wife and the daughter. of 1 iii) The wife further contended that the awarded is meager in view of the current cost of living. The daughter, aged about 14 years, is studying in 9th grade under the CBSE syllabus. An amount of ?15,000/- per annum is being spent towards her educational expenses, in addition to ?2,000/- per month for books and stationery. They also require ? 12,000/- per month for food and clothing. The husband is working as a maintenance Secondary Grade Teacher in the Mandal Praja Parishad School at Yeditha Village and is drawing a salary of ?49,453/- per month. Hence, she prayed for enhancement of maintenance from ?3,500/- to 3 ?18,000/- per month for herself and from ?2,500/- ot ?12,000/- per month for the daughter, iv. Hence, this application. The husband filed counter before the Trial Court and denied the allegations made by the wife, while admitting the relationship between the parties and pleaded that: He spent an amount of ?50,000/- for his daughter’s half- saree function. He further contended that the wife has been harassing him by filing multiple cases against him. The enhancement of the maintenance amount sought by the wife and daughter is excessive. He also has to take care of his aged parents and is incurring heavy debts due to her actions. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. During enquiry, the wife herself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.4. On behalf of the husband, he examined as R.W. 1, but no documentary evidence was adduced. After full-fledged enquiry, the learned Judge, Family Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, vide order dated 16.07.2018, enhanced monthly maintenance from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.6,000/- to the wife and from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- to the daughter, from the date of order against the husband. 4. 5. was 6. 4 7. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision cases were preferred by the wife and husband, respectively. It is the only contention urged by Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel appearing for the wife and daughter that the Trial Court ought to have enhanced the maintenance amount as claimed by them by considering the change of circumstances and that Ex.P.2 salary certificate of the husband shows that he is getting salary of Rs.49,453/- per month, thereby, they are entitled for enhancement of maintenance and prays to consider the revision preferred by them. Per contra, Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the Trial Court failed to consider the earlier order dated 23.11.2011 in Crl.R.C.No. 1579 of 2011 by awarding only Rs.2,000/- each to the wife and daughter, thereby, this Court has no reason to enhance the maintenance as claimed by them, as such, prays to consider the revision preferred by him. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court?” 8. 9. 10. 5 11. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel both sides, this Court perused the entire material available on record. There is no dispute about the relationship between the parties as wife, husband, and daughter. It is also not in dispute that the wife and husband are residing separately and daughter is residing with her mother. It is also an admitted fact that after passing orders in Crl.R.C.No. 1579 of 2011 on 23.11.20211 by the High Court, the order under challenge dated 16.07.2018 was passed by the Trial Court by enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.3,500/- to Rs.6,000/- to the wife and from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- to the daughter by considering the facts and circumstances, cost of living. on 12. To prove the claim made by the wife and daughter, the wife herself examined before the Trial Court as P.W.l and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.4. 13. As per the testimony of P.W.l the daughter is aged 15 years and studying 10^^ class. On perusal of Ex.P.2 salary certificate, dated 25.01.2017, the husband is getting monthly gross salary of Rs.49,453/-, which is not in dispute and he is getting net salary of Rs.34,053/- after standard deductions. 6 14. Even as per the testimony of husband as R.W.l he is paying maintenance to the wife and daughter regularly. According to him he has to see the welfare of his old, aged father, who is depending upon him. He categorically admitted during cross examination that the expenditure for the study of the daughter will be more since she is coming to intermediate. 15. It is the also not in dispute that by the date of filing of the maintenance case of the year 2008, the daughter is studying standard and now she is studying 10* class. Even salaiy certificate as on December 2016, the husband gross salary of Rs.49,453/-. By considering the above-said facts and as per Ex.P.2 getting 16. change of circumstances, the Trial Court rightly enhanced the monthly maintenance granted to the wife and daughter, which no interference of this Court in the absence of valid ground urged by the parties. requires 17. It is needless to say that it is always open to the wife and daughter to seek enhancement of maintenance against the husband before the Trial Court, if there are any change of circumstances and escalation of prices, which influence their day-to-day needs. 7 18. Having regarding to the above discussion, this Court has no reason to interfere with the well-articulated order the Trial Court, thereby, the merits and are liable for dismissal. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case Nos.2252 are dismissed eonfirming the order dated 16.07.2018 in I.A.No.337 of 2017 in M.C.No.3 of 2008 file of the Family Courhcum-IX Additional District Court, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand As a sequel, miseellaneous applications pending, shall stand closed. passed by present revision cases have no 19. and 2384 of 2018 on the vacated. if any. SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Family Court Cum IX Additional District And Sessions Court East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram (Records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. B P Raju, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K B Ramanna Dora, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District. 6. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLRC.No.2252 of 2018 AND 2384 of 2018 THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES ARE DISMISSED