APHC010566042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11115/2025 Between: 1. KOMARIPALEPU VAMSI MAHESH, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA, AGED 30 YEARSOCC. COOLEE, R/O. D NO. 1-296,KOTCHERLA VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. KOMARIPALEPU SARASWATHI, W/O. VAMSI MAHESH, AGED 35 YEARSOCC. STAFF NURSE IMN GOVT AREA HOSPITALPALAKOLLU, PALAKOLLU MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICTALSO ATD NO. 7-79, POTHAVARAM VILLAGE NALLAJERLA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BYITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to set aside the order dated 01-09-2025 in Crl R.C 11 of 2024, on the file of XI th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalli Gudem and order dated 05-02-2024 in MC 41 if 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem in the interest of Justice and pass such 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 01-09-2025 passed in CrI R.C 11 of 2024, on. the file of XI th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalli Gudem and order dated 05- 02-2024 in MC 41 if 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Tadepalligudem pending disposal of above Criminal Petition in the interest of Justice and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/ husband seeking to quash the Order dated 01.09.2024 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows: (a) Respondent No.1 filed M.C.No.41 of 2022 against her husband on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class at Tadepalligudem, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to her and the learned Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, passed Order dated 05.02.2022 by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to her from the date of filing of the petition. (b) Aggrieved by the said Order, the husband preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2024 before the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalliguem, wherein, the learned District Judge, on hearing both sides, vide Order dated 01.09.2025 dismissed the said revision by confirming the order of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tadepalligudem dated 05.02.2024 in M.C.No.41 of 2022 with effect from the date of petition. (c) Having dissatisfied with the said Order dated 01.09.2025, the Petitioner/husband came up with the present petition. 1 For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 4 3. Heard Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastry, learned counsel representing the husband and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. 4. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 5. As seen from the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it was observed that though the petitioner/husband contended that the respondent/wife is working as a Nurse, failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove her income. It was further observed by the learned Magistrate that there is also no proof with regard to the employment of the respondent/wife i.e., either on regular or contract basis. While placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai dated 27.11.2007, wherein it was held that the capacity of the deserted wife to maintain herself has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record and if the personal income of the wife is insufficient, she can claim 5 maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards maintenance, which is in accordance with law. 6. The order passed by the learned Revision Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2024 would also disclose that the information obtained under RTI Act was produced before the Court showing that the respondent/wife had been appointed as Staff Nurse on contract basis vide proceedings dated 20.01.2021 and the said contract was for a period of one year, which could be renewed based on the performance of the employee. The learned Revision Judge further observed that the employment of the respondent/wife for her survival cannot absolve the liability of the petitioner/husband to maintain her. While observing so, the learned Revision Judge has dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.41 of 2022. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances and the material placed on record coupled with orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revision Judge, this Court is of the considered view that the said orders are well reasoned and there are no infirmities and irregularities therein. There are no tenable grounds raised by either side to quash the said revisional order and hence, the present petition deserves dismissal. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2024 on the 6 file of the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:29.10.2025 JLV 7 232 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 11115 of 2025 Dt.29.10.2025 JLV