APHC010036932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 785/2025 Between: 1. MALISETTI PUSHPALATHA @ S. SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O SHARATH KUMAR, HINDU, AGED 43 YEARS. HOMEMAKER, D.NO.2-151, MUNGANDA VILLAGE, P. GANNAVARAMMANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. MALISETTI SHARATH KUMAR, S/O GIRI RAO HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, D.NO.4-2-151/65, SRINIVASA NAGAR, KHAMMAM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. ...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 Court pleased to set aside the impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.42 of 2019, dated 31.12.2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Amalapuram and to quash the same and consequently restore the order dated 31.12.2018 passed in M.C. 15 of 2013 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 to suspend the Order dated 31.12.2024 passed in C.R.P. No.42 of 2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram, pending disposal of the main Criminal Petition and may pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 785/2025 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C)/under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the impugned Order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram in C.R.P.No.42 of 2019 dated 31.12.2024 and consequently restore the Order dated 31.12.2018 passed in M.C.No.15 of 2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta. 2. Heard Sri Pardha Saradhi.A.V, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent No.1. The petitioner has filed M.C.No.15 of 2013 for maintenance and the same was allowed by the learned Trial Judge by granting Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 filed revision in C.R.P.No.42 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Amalapuram. The learned Revision Court, allowed the revision petition and dismissed the maintenance case, since the petitioner has given her evidence by way of 4 affidavit before the Trial Court. He would further submit that the petitioner is the wife, who is unemployed, suffering from several health issues and hospitalised and because of this Order, she could not get a single paisa from the husband to sustain herself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge, instead of setting aside the Maintenance Order, ought to have remanded the matter for fresh disposal, since an irregular procedure was adopted by the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the learned Revision Court rightly set aside the Maintenance Order passed by the Trial Court for valid legal reasons and finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned Judge has dealt with the matter as an appellate court. Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the filing of chief examination by way of affidavit by the petitioner before the Trial Court is not tenable under law. However, instead of appreciating the evidence like an appellate court, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Needless to say, if the learned Trial Judge was taking the chief examination of the witness by way of affidavit and the parties had followed the same, that cannot be attributed against the petitioner. The petitioner shall not suffer due to the act of the Court. 5 7. In that view, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The Revision Order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal according to law. Learned Trial Judge is directed to record the examination of the witness according to law and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.09.2025 UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 785/2025 Dated.24.09.2025 UPS 225