APHC010545102024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1232/2024 Between: V. SURESH KUMAR, S/O LATE K. VENUGOPAL HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/AT D.NO.11-170, BUGGA STREET, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI 2. A REVATHI, W/O V. SURESH KUMAR D/O LATE A. GOVINDARAJULU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.20- 1-470/7-A, CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY COLONY, MARUTI NAGAR KORALGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: PAWAN KUMAR MALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NANDIREDDY VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The learned Trial Court in F.C.O.P. No.148 of 2015 initially granted Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to the respondent No.2. Later, in a petition filed in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2023, the learned Trial Court enhanced the maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed. 3. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not disputed. The avocation of the petitioner is a clerk in the Railways. As on the date of the impugned order, the petitioner was drawing Rs.38,511/- towards his net salary. In pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court on 18.03.2025, the petitioner has been continuously paying an amount of Rs.13,000/- per month. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s net salary is Rs.38,511/-, and it is very difficult for him to pay Rs.13,000/- towards interim maintenance as per the orders of this Court, inasmuch as he has incurred certain private debts due to his mother’s ill health. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that respondent No.2 is not working anywhere now and is unable to maintain herself. The amount enhanced by the learned Trial Court is not even sufficient for her maintenance. Hence, he urged that the revision case be dismissed. 6. The respondent No.2, as P.W.1 in F.C.O.P. No.148 of 2015 on 29.03.2016, in her cross-examination admitted that she studied B.Com, whereas in her cross-examination in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2023 on 11.02.2024, she deposed that she studied Intermediate. The statement is contradictory to her earlier deposition. The respondent No.2 in her deposition dated 29.03.2016 admitted that she worked in the Veterinary University and was getting Rs.7,000/- per month. She also admitted in her cross-examination dated 11.02.2024 that she had joined as a contract basis attender in the Veterinary Department, S.V.University, drawing only Rs.5,000/- in 2005. In her deposition dated 29.03.2016, she again admitted that she was drawing Rs.5,000/-. Thus, in one deposition she had stated she was drawing Rs.5,000/-, and in another, she stated that she was drawing Rs.7,000/-. This shows that respondent No.2 as P.W.1 was not speaking the whole truth. 7. As per her own admission, she studied B.Com and was drawing Rs.7,000/- per month, if her admission dated 29.03.2016 is taken as 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 true. Ironically, the respondent No.2, as petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.148 of 2015, neither filed any proof to show that she was not working as an attender nor filed her salary slip. Similarly, the petitioner before the learned Trial Court as respondent neither summoned the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of respondent No.2 from the Veterinary Department in S.V. University to prove that she was working as an attender nor the petitioner had filed any document to establish that her salary was Rs.7,000/- per month or more. P.W.2 is the elder sister of respondent No.2. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has got certain fixed immovable properties, but no document was filed to show that she has such fixed properties. 9. Be that as it may, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the enhanced amount of Rs.15,000/- directed by the learned Trial Court appears to be, at present, on the higher side. However, in view of the fact that no assets and liabilities statements were filed before the learned Trial Court, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha1, wherein at paragraph No.65 it was held as under: 65. The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 interim maintenance with limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the court concerned, as a mandatory requirement. On the basis of the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. 10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra, wherein it was held that even in interlocutory applications such as those for granting interim maintenance or enhancement of maintenance, the Court should insist on for filing statements of assets and liabilities by both parties. 11. The High Court of Patna in Gitanjali devi @ Gitanjali Kumari v. State of Bihar 2 observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance was liable to be set aside as the learned Trial Court had not followed the procedure described by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. Citing the Rajnesh supra the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma3, expressed anguish over non-compliance or improper compliance of directions laid down in Rajnesh supra and directed recirculation of the judgment for compliance thereof. 2 Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2018, dated 02.12.2023 32023 SCC OnLine SC 1451 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 12. A learned Judge of Madras High Court in Balram Dixit v. Smt. Kiran Dixit4 following the law laid down in Aditi supra had set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court concerned and directed both the parties to submit fresh affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, setting aside the order dated 26.10.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2023, and remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh supra. Until such time, the petitioner is directed to continue to pay Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 29.10.2025 RSI 4 Crl.R.C.No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.1232 of 2024 Dated 29.10.2025 103 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1232 of 2024 Date: 29.10.2025 RSI