«ac;;*> APHC010375562009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^ AT AMARAVATI <5 < 4. TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1578 OF 2009 Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2009 passed in M.C.No.245 of 2005 by the Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Betvreen: Simhadri Thirupathi Rao, S/o Sriramulu, aged about 40 years, Occ: Constable, GC CRPF, R/o. HQ 999 BN RAF, Hakeempet Post, Shameerpet, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioner/Respondent AND 1. Simhadri Kalpana, W/o. Thirupathai Rao, Aged about 30 Years, R/o. D.No.38-30-225, Hussain Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatanam. 2. Simhadri Gowthami, D/o. Thirupathai Rao, Aged about 8 years, R/o. D.No.38-30-225, Hussain Nagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatanam. Rep. by its her mother i.e., S. Kalpana. ... Respondents/Petitioners 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ...Respondents i nF 9009 fCRLRCMP 2184 OF 2009J: that in the under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High further proceedings pursuant of the order M.C.No. 245 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Petition filed circumstances stated in Court may be pleased to stay of all dated 30.06.2009 passed in Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the CrI.R.C. Family court Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.V.Satish, Advocate Respondent No.1&2: Sri A.S.C.Bose, Advocate Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Counsel for the Counsel for Respondent No.3: The The Court made the following order: I APHC010375562009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRElSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1578/2009 Between: 1.SIMHADRI THIRUPATHI RAO, S/0 SRIRAMULU, CONSTABLE, GC CRPF, R/0 HQ 999 BN RAF, HAKEEMPET POST, SHAMEERPET, ...PETITIONER AND 1.SIMHADRI KALPANA 2 OTHERS, W/0 THIRUPATHAI RAO, R/0 D.NO.38-30-225, HUSSAIN NAGAR, MARRIPALEM, •2.SIMHADRI GOWTHAMI, D/0 THJRUPATHAI RAO, R.2 BEING MINOR, REP. BY ITS HER MOTHER Ie', S. KALPANA, R/0 D.NO.38-30-225, HUSSAIN NAGAR, MARRIPALEM, 3.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to prefer this CrI.R.C., before this Hon'ble Court, being aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.C.No.245 of 2005, dt. 30-06-2009. lA NO: 1 OF 2009rCRLRCMP 2184 OF 2009 2 Petitron 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 pursuant to the order dt. 30-6-2009 passed in M.C^No.245 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Family court. Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the CrI.R.C.. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVSATISH : Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.AS C BOSE 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER:- \ 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Petitioner/Husband assailing the Order dated 30 06 2009 i 2005, passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam ^ (for short, 'the Family Court’). By the said order, the Family Court allowed petition, granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- to the 1 petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- to the 2"^ petitioner). Code Cr.P.C.') is filed on behalf of the 'r> ^ O K in ivi.o.i sio.245 of the St 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Criminal Revision will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Family Court. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: The 1®* petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and the 2'^^ petitioner is their minor daughter. The marriage was solemnized on 11.03.1996 under the Christian Marriage Act, at which time Rs.35,000/- and gold articles were given as dowry. The respondent subjected the 1 petitioner to harassment by abusing, suspecting her fidelity Case 3. St and r 3 compelling her to undergo abortions on two occasions. After the birth of the 2'^^ petitioner, the respondent allegedly deserted them for about three years, and though cohabitation was resumed in 2003 through elders’ intervention, his ill-treatment continued. The petitioners assert that they were subjected to b^oth physical and mental cruelty, compelling the 1®' petitioner to leave the respondent’s company and seek dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Subsequently, she filed a maintenance case on 30.06.2009, wherein the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to both petitioners. The respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and asserting that the marriage was solemnized as per their religious customs. He contends that the petitioners’ claims are false and alleges that the parents of the 1®* petitioner pressurized him to marry their elder daughter, Latha, who is physically handicapped. It is further stated that the parties resided in Kashmir and later at Pinjore, Haryana, for the education of the 2"^^ petitioner. On the occasion of her 4*^ birthday at Visakhapatnam, the 1®* petitioner’s parents allegedly insisted that the respondent resign his job and stay with them to manage their daughter and property. The respondent claims that the 1®* petitioner thereafter refused to join him without cause and voluntarily withdrew from his society. He further submits that his monthly income does not exceed Rs. 15,000/-, which is insufficient to maintain himself, his aged father, and his widowed sister. 4. During the course of the trial, the 1®* petitioner was examined as PW.1 along with P\Ns.2 and 3, and Exs.AI to A5 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent was examined as RW.1, along with RWs.2 and 3, and Exs. B1 to B12 were marked on his behalf. 5. 4 ♦ 6. The Trial Court, upon hearing both parties and on due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced, partly allowed the petition and directed the respondent/husband to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.1,000/- to the 2 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2009 in M.C.No.245 of 2005, the respondent/husband preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. Now, the points that arise for consideration nd petitioner. 8. are; 1) Whether the impugned order for granting maintenance Rs.4,000/- to both the petitioners is legally sustainable in law? 2) Does the order passed by the Additional Family Court warrant any interference? of POINTS N0.1 AND 2: The impugned order in rv1.C.No.245 of 2005 indicates that the Family Court awarded the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1"' petitioner and Rs.1,000/- per month to her minor child, the 2'^'" petitioner herein, thus granting a total monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-. The revision petitioner contended that the Family Court proper appreciation of the evidence on record, granted maintenance based assumptions and presumptions. The petitioner further submitted that he i responsible for taking care of his widowed sister, who is dependent on him. 10. without a on IS 11. As evident from the record, there is no dispute between the parties regarding their relationship, and they have one daughter. The petitioner in M.C.No.245 of 2005 contended that she resided with the approximately six months, during which time the respondent for respondent/husband suspected the character of the 1"* petitioner. Subsequently, in 2000, the 5 respondent/husband sent the petitioner, along with the 2'""' petitioner, to the 1®' petitioner’s parents’ house. PW.1 testified that the respondent used to verbally abuse her in filthy language in the presence of their servants and frequently suspected her character. The respondent, examined as RW.1, testified in cross-examination that he receives a net monthly income of Rs.4,500/-, has taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for house construction, and pays an EMI of Rs.4,500/- per month. However, he denied the suggestion that he earns Rs.25,000/- per month following the 6’^ Pay Commission, as a Central Government employee. Additionally, RW.1 admitted during cross-examination that he has neither issued any legal notice to PW.1 to rejoin him after, the birth of the child nor taken any steps to file an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 12. After considering the evidence of RW.2, the Family Court correctly concluded that his testimony was not helpful in deciding the matter. 13. The evidence of RW.3 indicates that, although he was summoned by PW.1 and the respondent to mediate their dispute, he appeared to act as an elder to reconcile the parties. After considering his testimony, the Family Court rejected his evidence, observing that it was not helpful to the respondent’s case. 14. 15. The petitioners relied on several photographs and negatives; however, the Family Court, upon consideration, observed that they were insufficient to substantiate the claims, as they bore little relevance. Ex.B6, the salary . certificate relied upon, indicates that the respondent’s salary is only Rs.11,000/-. In cross-examination, RW.1 admitted that his gross monthly income is Rs.15,000/-. The Family Court declined to consider Ex.B6, holding it 6 to be a fabricated document. Nevertheless, the evidence of RW.1 that his income exceeds the amount stated in the Ex.B6 salary certificate. indicates 16. The Family Court rightly observed that although the respondent obtained a loan from the bank for the construction of his house, he is not absolved from the obligation to pay maintenance to his wife and children. 17. It appears that the respondent contends that PW.1 deserted him because he refused to marry her sister, named Latha. To refute this claim, the petitioner produced photographs suggesting that her sister Latha is unfit for marriage, along with a medical certificate confirming that the petitioner’s sister ■ is crippled and not suitable for marriage. After taking the said circumstances into consideration, the Family Court disbelieved the respondent’s testimony. 18. Upon appreciation of the evidence at the correct conclusion regarding the financia! c.a record, the Family Court arrived on pacify of the respondent, and there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioner can maintain herself without the support of her husband. Taking into consideration the respondent’s salary of Rs. 15,000/-, the Family Court rightly evaluated petitioner’s maintenance claim and granted one-third of his total earnings. This proportion aligns with the well-established legal principle that maintenance typically extends up to one-third of the paying spouse's income, subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, this Court is of the the . considered opinion that the amount awarded does not appear to be excessive, arbitrary, or unjustified. Instead, it is consistent with judicial precedents and the underlying objective of securing a reasonable standard of living for the dependent party. Considering respondent/husband, the Family Court rightly determined the maintenance amount. Therefore, at this stage, no tenable ground exists to warrant the financial position of the 7 % interference with the quantum of maintenance as determined by the Family Court. 19. Given the discussion above and the findings, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Judge of the Family Court has rendered a judicious and well- reasoned order, duly considering the material on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Case, therefore, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the points are answered. 20. In light of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons articulated above. Criminal Revision Case No. 1578 of 2009 is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, in M.C.No.245 of 2005, dated 30.06.2009, is confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. and the Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \\ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. One CC to Sri V.V.Satish, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, Fligh Court of A.P. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GPC nm HIGH COURT DATED: 02/09/2025 ORDER CRLRC NO. 1578 OF 2009 if( 2 3 OCT 2025^ V lirs^mintStctionJ^ DISMISSING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE