APHC010209772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1145/2025 Between: 1. P. MOHITH SUNDAR REDDY, S/O. MR.P.SYAMPRASAD REDDY,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO.202, HARINI NIVASAM, SHANTI NAGAR, K.T. ROAD, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517501. ...PETITIONER AND 1. V SAHITHI VIRUPAKSHI POOJA, W/o.P.Mohith Sundar Reddy (D/o.V.G.Sivasankara Reddy), aged about 32 years, R/o. Door No.19-12-199, Pavani Nagar, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh - 517501. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 13.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.958 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.306 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Family Judge -cum- V Additional District Judge, Tirupati IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order dated 13.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.958 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.306 of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Family Judge - cum- V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 Pleased to take up C.R.P. No.1145 of 2025 as FOR-BEING MENTIONED by setting the correct start date for arrears as 11.11.2024 to reckon arrears from 11.11.2024, VS,J crp_1145_2025 2 which is when the Respondent-herein’s second affidavit was considered compliant by the Learned Trial Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON Counsel for the Respondent: 1. CHINTHA UMR The Court made the following: VS,J crp_1145_2025 3 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.958 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2023 by the Judge, Family Court – Cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby, the Trial Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. 2) The revision petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife. 3) The respondent herein filed F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2023 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights directing the petitioner herein to lead marital life with her. During pendency of the said F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2023, the respondent – wife filed I.A.No.958 of 2024 under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act requesting the Court below to direct the petitioner herein to pay Rs.2,00,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.2,00,000/- towards litigation expenses, contending that her marriage with the petitioner herein was solemnized on 29.04.2020, and at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid as dowry, as demanded by the parents of the petitioner besides presentation of 100 sovereigns of gold and other articles to the petitioner. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 11.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner and his parents started demanding additional dowry to start business, for which the parents of the respondent expressed VS,J crp_1145_2025 4 their inability. The petitioner herein deserted the respondent – wife and her child since 23.04.2023, since then she is suffering a lot for her daily needs and for the expenses of the child. Respondent – wife further contended that she has no source of income and she along with her child depending on her parents, whereas the revision petitioner – husband is a Senior Manager in Target Corporation, Minnea Polis, U.S.A. working from home and earning Rs.40,00,000/- per month and requested to grant Rs.15,000/- as interim maintenance. 4) The revision petitioner – husband filed counter before the trial Court contending that the respondent – wife holds Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) Degree with advanced certificate in Endodontic Treatment of RCT (Root-Canal treatment) and she owns 70 sovereigns of gold jewellery. He further contended that he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and his parents and grandmother are depending on him. As the respondent – wife is working as Dentist and having sufficient means to maintain herself, there is no necessity to pay interim maintenance, and requested to dismiss I.A.No.958 of 2024 filed by the respondent – wife. 5) The Trial Court upon hearing both the counsel partly allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent – wife in part and directed the petitioner herein – husband to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed. VS,J crp_1145_2025 5 6) During hearing, revision petitioner appeared before this Court in the capacity of party-in-person and contended that the respondent – wife played fraud on the Court and wantonly suppressed her income tax returns, bank account statements and other details of maintenance case filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. When the petitioner – husband raised objection regarding suppression of material facts in the affidavit dated 19.07.2024, the Family Court directed both the parties to file fresh affidavits along with supporting documents, even then also, she has filed false affidavit on 11.11.2024 without disclosing her Bank account details and income tax returns contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rajnesh Vs. Neha1”. She also filed another F.C.O.P.NO.91 of 2024 claiming maintenance of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. In the affidavit dated 11.11.2024 filed by the respondent – wife, she declared at Sr.No.9 that she has one bank account with UBI while concealing other two bank accounts (Axis Bank and Syndicate Bank) and also suppressed bank statements for last 3-4 years. As the respondent – wife made false declaration, he moved Perjury application under Section 379 of BNSS before the Court below. 7) The petitioner – husband further contended that the respondent – wife is well qualified Dentist, who is a Bachelor of Dental Surgery from Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences in 2014 and has 6 to 7 years of work experience in Hyderabad, first as Dentist at Venu’s Dental Clinic in Hyderabad and then as a Dentist – 1 (2020) 13 SCR 1093. VS,J crp_1145_2025 6 Tutor at Sri Balaji Dental College in Moinabad, Hyderabad till September – October 2020. But suppressing these facts, she has filed an affidavit before the Court below stating that she is un-employee and filed application seeking interim maintenance, and the trial Court granted interim maintenance without considering the above aspect of suppression of earlier employment of the petitioner and suppression of income tax returns, bank account statements, therefore, he requested to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.958 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2023 by the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additinal District Judge, Tirupati. 8) Learned counsel for the respondent – wife contended that the petitioner neglected to maintain his wife (respondent) and she has no means to maintain herself and her child, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below granted meagre amount to the respondent – wife as interim maintenance, which need not be interfered with by this Court and requested to dismiss the revision. 9) Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with respondent – wife was solemnized on 29.04.2020, they lead happy marital life for some time and out of their wedlock, they are blessed with a baby boy on 11.08.2022, thereafter, the respondent-wife and her child were deserted by the petitioner since 23.04.2023. The respondent – wife filed the present F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2023 for restitution of conjugal rights and the revision petitioner – husband filed F.C.O.P.No.274 of 2023 seeking divorce from the respondent – wife VS,J crp_1145_2025 7 on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion. In the interlocutor application, the respondent – wife contended that she has no source of income. However, the revision petitioner contended that the respondent – wife is working as dentist and she has sufficient means, but she has filed false affidavit suppressing her income and bank account details. 10) As the revision petitioner – husband failed to prove that the respondent – wife has sufficient means to maintain herself, the Court below allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent – wife by observing that the wife has no source of income and she and her son are depending upon the income of her parents and granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- to her as interim maintenance. 11) The revision petitioner – husband admitted that he is drawing around Rs.50,000/- per month, therefore, his earning capacity was rightly estimated by the Court below basing on the admission made by the petitioner in his affidavit. 12) Therefore, granting of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month by the Court below is just and reasonable since the respondent – wife is expected to lead same standard of living, which the petitioner is leading and to meet the expenses for food, medical and clothing etc., for herself and her child. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Court below is commensurate with the price index and cost of living. VS,J crp_1145_2025 8 13) Further, with regard to suppression of facts and filing of false affidavit, the revision petitioner admitted that he has already filed Perjury application before the Court below along with material evidence and the same is pending for adjudication. As the Perjury case is pending before the Court below, the revision petitioner is at liberty to pursue the pending perjury case before the Court concerned. 14) In view of my foregoing discussion, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 15) Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to pursue the pending perjury case filed against the respondent – wife. No costs. 16) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 20.11.2025 Ksp