IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY ffS’i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE I 9 W oi C.. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINALPETITION NO: 7622 OF 2021 & 2358 OF 2022 Between: 1. Smt. Perisepalli Vimala Durga, W/o Maruthi Rama Raghav, 34 Years, R/o H.No.53-9-1, Someswara Agraharam, Palakol (M)West Godavari District 2. Perisepalli Siddi Naga Siva Shanmukha Sesha Sai Sri Krishna, Dependent, S/o Maruthi Rama Raghav, 5 Years, Hindu, Male, H.No.53- 9-1, SomeswarAgraharam, Palakol (M) West Godavari District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court buildings, Amaravathi. 2. Perisepalli Maruthi Rama Raghav, S/o Venkata Sesha Sai, 36 Years, Hindu, R/o 303, Vijetha Sanjeevani Apartments, 6-4-8, Musheerabad Main Road, Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS I L S Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, Ih6 High Court to set aside/Quash the Order dated 05-07-2021 made in Criminal Revision Petition. No 13 of 2020 on the file of IV th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tanuku FAC, X th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur. ‘J. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to conform the orders made in M.C.No.2 of 2016,on the file of Principal junior Judge-cum-J.F.C.M. Court. Palakol. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2358 OF 2022: Between: Perisepalli Maruthi Rama Raghav, S/o Venkata Sesha Sai Aged 36 years occ student r/o 303, Vijetha Sanjeevani Apartments, 6-4-8 Musheerabad Main road, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Amaravathi. 2. Smt.Parisepalli Vimala Durga, W/o Maruthi Rama Raghav Aged 34 years occ Pvt. Employee r/o H.no.53-9-1 Someswar Agraharam, Palakol (M) West Godavari District. 3. Perisepalli Siddi Naga Siva Shanmukha Sesha Sai Krishna Rama Raghav Aged 5 years minor rep. by mother and natural Guardian Smt. P. Vimala Durga r/o H.no.53-9-1 Someswar Agraharam, Palakol (M) West Godavari District. S/o maruthi ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to set aside the order passed in CrI.R.P.No. 13/2020 dt. 5.7.2021 on the file of learned X Addl.District and Sessions Judge Narsapur, West Godavari District i.A. NO: 2 OF 2027 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in on the file pursuance of the order passed in CrI.R.P.No.13/2020 dt. 5.7.2021 of learned X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, & Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba Advocates Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor AP on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Amancharla Satish Babu, & Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba Advocates the Respondents. for the for The Court made the following: I APHC010383702021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY Of AM 0^ [3396] -3^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 7622/2021 & 2.^fi«/9n99 Criminal Petition No.7622 of 2021 Between: 1.SMT. PERISEPALLI VIMALA PRATAPA RAGHAV, 34 YEARS, R/O H.NO.Ssll^'oME^WA^SHArM" PALAKOL (M)WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AGRAHARAM. (M) K^GO^dS^D^IsVriI^^ ' ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. PERISEPALLI MARUTHI RAMA RAGHAV, S/O VENKATA SESHA 36 YEARS, HINDU, R/O 303, VIJETHA SANJEEVANI / 6-4-8, MUSHEERABAD MAIN ROAD, SECUNDERABAD ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SAI, APARTMENTS Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Criminal Petition No.23fi« nf 2022 Between: ^ MARUTHI RAMA RAGHAV, S/O VENKATA SESHA SAI AGED 36 YEARS OCC STUDENT R/O 303, VIJETHA APARTMENTS, 6-4-8 MUSHEERABAD SECUNDERAHAD. SANJEEVANI MAIN ROAD, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND £ 2 a# ♦ 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2.SMT PARISEPALLI VIMALA DURGA, W/0 MARUTHI RAMA RAGHAV AGED 34 YEARS OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE SOMESWAR AGRAHARAM, DISTRICT. 3.PERISEPALLI SIDDI NAGA SIVA SHANMUKHA SESHA SAI KRISHNA, S/0 MARUTHI RAMA RAGHAV AGED 5 YEARS MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. P. VIMALA DURGA R/0 H.NO.53-9-1 SOMESWAR AGRAHARAM, PALAKOL (M) WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. R/0 H.NO.53-9-1 PALAKOL (M) WEST GODAVARI ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.MEDAPATI SANTOSH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1.AMANCHARLA SATISH BABU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The instant petitions under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ have been filed by the Petitioners/wife & son and Petitioner/husband respectively seeking to quash the Order dated 05.07.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 13 of 2020 on.the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of the same Order 2. 05.07.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 13 of 2020, they are decided together by this common order. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows: 3. Petitioners/wife and son filed M.C.No.2 of 2016 against the (a) husband on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 3 Claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the wife and Rs. 10,000/-to the son and the learned Magistrate, after conducting dated 06.01.2020 by granting monthly maintenance and Rs.5,000/- to the enquiry, passed Order of Rs. 12,500/- to the wife son from the date of filing of the petition, (b) Aggrieved by the said Order, the husband preferred Criminal Additional District Judge, the learned District Judge, on hearing Revision Petition No. 13 of 2020 before the learned X East Godavari at Kakinada, wherein, both sides, vide Order dated 05.07.2021 reducing the maintenance granted to the wife from Rs.7,500/- per month by keeping the maintenance (c) Having dissatisfied with the said Order Petitioners/wife and son and Petitioner/husband petitions. partly allowed the said revision by Rs. 12,500/- per month to granted to the son as it is. dated 05.07.2021, the came up with the present Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri A.Satish Babu, learned counsel and Sri M.Santhosh Reddy, learned counsel Learned counsel for the wife and representing the wife and son representing the husband, son would submit that the learned Revisional Court erred in reducing the maintenance amount of the wife and has not given any logical reasoning for reducing the 5. same. Learned counsel no grounds to reduce the maintenance granted to the wife by the learned trial Judge. It is submitted the monthly maintenance granted to the wife by the Revisional Court is very meager and is would further submit that there are not sufficient to maintain herself. 4 6. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for the husband would submit that, the learned Revisional Judge failed to appreciate that the wife deserted the husband along with the child on her own accord and there was no negligence on the part of the husband. Learned counsel would further submit that in view of the acquittal of the husband from the case filed by wife for the offence under Section 498-A I PC, the wife is not entitled to any maintenance. Further the wife is highly quailed and has been doing a job. Learned counsel would further submit that the husband filed G.W.O.P.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur seeking custody of the child, which shows the bonafides of the husband. Learned counsel would finally submit that, in view of the voluntary desertion of the wife and in view of her qualification and earnings, the husband is not entitled to pay any maintenance to the wife as well as the son. 7. 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 A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that the 8. learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol, after completion of enquiry, having come to the conclusion that the husband is well educated, highly qualified and was working as a Software Engineer at Hyderabad, granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 12,500/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- to the son. In / the revision filed by the husband, the learned Revisional Judge, based on Ex.R.13 income tax returns of the wife, on the ground the wife was getting considerable income, reduced her monthly maintenance from Rs. 12,500/- to Rs.7,500/-, however, has not altered the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the learned trial Judge to the son. As rightly held by the learned Revisional Judge, though the wife proved 9. that the husband owned a house and car, failed to prove his specific means of income. It was further observed by the learned Revisional Judge that though the husband admitted that he used to get Rs.35,000/- per month while working with NISUM in the year 2010, there was no evidence of his income at a later point of time. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmities and irregularities in the order passed by the learned Revisional Judge. Therefore, the Order passed by the Revisional Court, does not brook any interference of this Court. There are no tenable grounds raised by either side to quash the said revisional order and hence, the present petitions deserve dismissal. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed confirming the Order 10. dated 05.07.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.13 of 2020 on the 6 ' file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tanuku FAC IXth Additional District Judge, narasapur West Godavari District. The IXth Additional District Judge, narasapur West Godavari District. One CC to Sri. Amancharla Satish Babu Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. Public Prosecutor (AP) Advocate [OPUC] Three CD Copies PNM 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. nm 1; HIGH COURT DATED:28/01/2025 5? o\ 0 6 SEP 2025 ms 09ft %^ Current Section COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.7622 of 2021 & CRLP. No. 2358 of 2022 CRLPs ARE DISMISSED