1 APHC010686152022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10071/2022 Between: VarikuntlaChennakesavulu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Varikuntla Sarada and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M RAVINDRA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. T C KRISHNAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10071/2022 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Sumanth, learned counsel representing Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 2. Impugning the Order in C.R.P.No.83 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Women, Nellore dated 15.03.2022 wherein the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the Orders passed by learned Trial Judge in M.C.No.11 of 2017 on the file of Court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovur dated 30.08.2019 granting maintenance @Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) per month each to wife and two children respectively, the present Criminal Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is maintaining a Saloon shop and getting a meagre income. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is suffering from severe health issues. He could not pay such huge amount to the wife and children. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the record shows that he underwent surgery to his brain as he suffered brain haemorrhage. 3 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are the wife and children would submit that by orders of this court dated 03.01.2023, petitioner is directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month pending the present petition. Learned counsel would further submit that inspite of such orders, the petitioner did not choose to pay any amount to the wife and children. Learned counsel would further submit that children are pursuing 10th class and 9th class respectively. Maintenance which was granted by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is on correct lines and nothing is there to intervene in the impugned orders while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has to maintain his old age parents and that the respondent No.1 who is the wife is also earning amount by lending amount to the others for interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the Court may pass appropriate Orders taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. As can be seen from the record, there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the wife, son and daughter to the petitioner respectively. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has been residing separately from the petitioner along with children since long time. Nothing has been placed on record to prove her income to maintain herself and the children. On the other hand, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is maintaining Air Conditioned 4 Saloon Shop and getting income. When wife has reasonable cause to live separate from the husband in absence of any income to maintain herself, the husband has every duty and obligation to maintain the wife. In the present case, the respondent No.1 has been taking care of the children who are pursuing their studies as 10th class and 9th class respectively. A fair look at the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge which was confirmed in Revision by the learned Sessions Judge shows that, they have taken care of every objection raised by the husband and taking into consideration the capacity of the husband, have rightly fixed the maintenance to the wife and children. The impugned orders do not brook any interference of this Court while exercising the Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 21.01.2025 UPS 5 338 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.10071 of 2022 Dt.21.01.2025 UPS