1 APHC010725592012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1649/2012 Between: 1. RACHABATHINI RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/O. R.P.V.KRISHNA RAO, R/O. D.NO. 19-14-6, 8TH LANE, INDIRA COLONY, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPT. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD. 2. RACHABATHINI MAHESWARI, W/O. RAMA MOHANA RAO, R/O. 8TH LANE, INDIRA COLONY, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR. 3. RACHABATHINI NAGA KARTHIK RAMA MOHANA RAO, S/O. RAMA MOHANA RAO, R/O. 8TH LANE, INDIRA COLONY, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT.RACHABATHINI MAHESWARI) 4. RACHABATHINI NAGA SARANYA, D/O. RAMA MOHANA RAO, R/O. 8TH LANE, INDIRA COLONY, SANGADIGUNTA, GUNTUR, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SMT.RACHABATHINI MAHESWARI) ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto present this 2 memorandum of criminal revision case under section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code aggrieved; against the order dated 19-07-2012 made in Crl.A.No. 62 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Judge Family Court, Guntur granting the maintenance over and above the order of the Special Mobile Court, Guntur dated 07-06-2011 in D.V.C.No. 14 of 2009. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(CRLRCMP 2532 OF 2012 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the order of the Special Mobile Court, Guntur dated 07-06-2011 in D.V.C.No. 14 of 2009 as modified by the order dated 19-07-2012 made in Crl.A.No. 62 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge Family Court, Guntur, pending disposal of the main criminal revision case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D KRISHNA MURTHY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the petitioner/appellant assailing the Judgment dated 19.07.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.62 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur (for short, „1st Appellate Court‟) whereby the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1500/- each to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein from the date of the order of the trial Court vide Order dated 07.06.2011 passed in D.V.C.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur (for short, „the Trial Court‟). 3 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The case of the complaint, as per the complaint of petitioner to the Protection Officer, in brief is as follows: The 1st petitioner, in DVC, got married the 1st Respondent in Guntur on 22.08.1997, with a dowry of Rs.70,000/- given to the respondents. After marriage, the petitioner faced physical and mental harassment from the respondents. Despite mediation efforts, the abuse continued. 1st Respondent frequently beat the petitioner, doubting her character, and was addicted to alcohol and immoral behavior. In May, 2008, the petitioner filed a police complaint, and 1st Respondent was warned, but his behavior remained unchanged. On 05.05.2009, the respondents quarreled with the petitioner, expelled her and her children from the home, and took her ornaments. The petitioner filed a complaint on the next day. After 1st Respondent‟s release from jail, he attempted to kill the petitioner through his associates. Fearing for her life, the petitioner has sought refuge at Mahila Pranganam, Guntur. 4. This case was taken on file against the respondents and summons were ordered to the respondents. The respondents appeared before the court and copies were furnished and thereafter they filed counter. 5. The 1st Respondent, in DVC, filed a counter, which Respondents 2 to 4 adopted. The counter states that the petitioner was unfamiliar with the 1st Respondent at the start of the marriage and was often evasive when questioned about her behavior. The petitioner led a luxurious lifestyle and frequently demanded money for gold and silver purchases, which the 1st Respondent, with his limited income, could not afford. Despite this, he tolerated her behavior, hoping she would change. However, the petitioner left him and began filing false cases. She lodged a criminal complaint (CC 205/09), resulting in the 1st Respondent‟s arrest and imprisonment. During this time, the petitioner, aided by others, forcibly took movable property and Rs.75,000/- in cash from his home. The counter also alleges that the 1st 4 Respondent has an illegal relationship with a person named Krishna, earns Rs.100/- to 120/- daily as a goldsmith, and owns no property. Consequently, he is unable to pay separate maintenance to the petitioner. 6. In support of the petition, the 1st petitioner got herself examined as PW.1. Exs.P1 to P4 were marked on her behalf. Respondents 1 to 3 were examined as RW.1 to Rw.3 on their behalf, but no documents marked. 7. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the petition, granting protection order to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, restraining the respondents from causing any violence against the petitioner; further, 1st respondent was directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month each to the petitioners 1 to 3 towards maintenance from the date of order i.e. on 07.06.2011; further, restraining the respondents from alienating the properties hold by 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner by way of paying the same directly to the petitioner or depositing in any bank account of the petitioner. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the unsuccessful 1st respondent filed Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2012 before the 1st Appellate Court and the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal and modified that the appellant therein was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein from the date of the order of the trial Court; further directed that the order was in addition to the order in M.C.No.67 of 2009 directing the payment of aggregate amount of Rs.2000/- per month to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and set aside the order directing the appellant to pay Rs.2000/- per month to Respondent No.1 therein. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment, the appellant, who is the revision petitioner herein, preferred this Criminal Revision. 5 9. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the judgment, dated 19.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2012, on the file of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur is sustainable in law and facts in terms of legality, regularity or propriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment rendered by the IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Guntur, is prejudicial, unlawful, and inconsistent with the factual matrix of the case. It is submitted that the 1st Appellate Court rightly observed that the trial Court, while awarding maintenance, failed to take into account the maintenance amount already granted to Respondents 3 and 4 by the Family Court. In light of this, the 1st Appellate Court ought to have reduced the maintenance by ₹1,000/-, corresponding to the sum previously awarded. However, it erroneously treated the maintenance now awarded as being in addition to the earlier awarded. The trial Court had duly considered the petitioner‟s income and social standing while determining the maintenance. Therefore, the order dated 19.07.2012, which confirms the maintenance and declares it as over and above the previous award, is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 11. 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”. 12. 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. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 2 (2009) 13 SCC 330 6 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." 13. 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." 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the learned Family Judge-cum- Additional District Judge, Guntur, in M.C. No. 67 of 2009, by order dated 29.03.2010, awarded a maintenance amount of ₹2,000/- per month to petitioners 2 and 3, who are minors represented by their guardian and next friend, namely, the 1st petitioner therein. 15. The record further discloses that the petitioners also approached the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur (hereinafter "the trial Court") by filing D.V.C. No. 14 of 2009, seeking relief by restraining the respondents from alienating the property, maintenance for the aggrieved person and her children, and compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for domestic violence. By order dated 07.06.2011, the trial Court directed the 1st respondent therein to pay maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month each to petitioners 1 to 3, from the date of the order. 3 AIR 2022 SC 3283 7 16. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent/husband preferred Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2012 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Family Court, Guntur (hereinafter "the 1st Appellate Court"). The 1st Appellate Court, by judgment dated 19.07.2012, partly allowed the appeal. The order of the trial Court was modified to the extent that the appellant was directed to pay ₹1,500/- per month each to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein from the date of the trial Court‟s order. 17. The 1st Appellate Court took note of the fact that Ex.P2 shows that the appellant therein as the registered owner of a house situated in Ward No. 22- A, bearing Assessment Nos. 59052 and 59021/3. Furthermore, the respondents therein filed Ex.P3, comprising a set of documents issued by the office of the Divisional Engineer (Operations), APSPDCL, Guntur, which indicate that the appellant holds multiple electricity service connections. 18. A perusal of the orders passed in both the M.C. proceedings and the D.V.C. proceedings reveals that petitioners 2 and 3 therein were approximately 9 and 5 years of age, respectively, during the year 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the petitioners in the M.C. and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Criminal Appeal have now attained majority, the petition may become infructuous, and they may no longer be entitled to maintenance. However, it is open to both parties to raise such contentions and make appropriate submissions before the Court concerned, as and when such issue arises. 19. After considering the entire material on record, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by both the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court. The 1st Appellate Court has carefully analyzed the evidence and arrived at a just and proper conclusion regarding the financial capacity of the revision petitioner. Furthermore, based on the material available, this Court is unable to conclude, by any stretch of imagination, that the maintenance awarded to the petitioners therein by the 1st Appellate Court is either excessive or unreasonable. In the absence of any legal infirmity in the 8 orders under challenge, this Court is not inclined to interfere and accordingly, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 20. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Criminal Revision Case.1649 of 2012 fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed, accordingly. The judgment passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, in Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2012, dated 19.07.2012, stands confirmed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 24.07.2025 MS 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1649 of 2012 Date: 24.07.2025 MS