APHC010235452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 583/2025 Between: M. Rajasekhar ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Velivela Veeraraghavaiah Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Samantha Krishna Sriramakavacham 2. Public Prosecutor 3. Legal Aid The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 8the Cr.P.C9), challenging the ex-parte order dated 28.06.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2021 in FCMC.No.23 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool enhancing the maintenance 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.15,000/- with effect from 01.07.2022 onwards on or before 10th of every month. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3 Sri Velivela Veera Raghavaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of the revision, contended that an ex parte interim order was passed enhancing the interim maintenance from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.15,000/- merely on the basis of proof of notice through WhatsApp, which does not constitute sufficient proof of service. He submitted that no opportunity, much less a fair opportunity, was given to the petitioner by the learned Trial Court. He further argued that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the 2nd respondent is highly educated, employed as a nurse, and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence, he urged to allow the criminal revision case. 4. On the other hand, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would argue that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the material available. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There were no perverse findings. There was no irregularity let alone material irregularity. The order impugned is not vitiated by manifest error of law or procedure which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order doesn9t suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the criminal revision case. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 5. Smt. S. Samantha Krishna, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that the learned Trial Court initially granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- on 29.09.2016, which was later enhanced to Rs.15,000/- on 28.06.2022. However, from 01.07.2022 onwards, the petitioner has not paid the enhanced maintenance. She contends that the 2nd respondent is not employed anywhere and is solely dependent on the earnings of the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the criminal revision case be dismissed. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned Legal Aid Counsel. I have perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: <Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2021 in FCMC.No.23 of 2015 dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?= 8. The relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is undisputed. It is also not in dispute that the learned Trial Court had earlier granted maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the 2nd respondent on 29.09.2016, which was later enhanced to Rs.15,000/- by virtue of the impugned order. The petitioner, a retired teacher aged about 60 years, is drawing a net pension of Rs.58,454/- as on 01.11.2024. The 2nd respondent is aged about 53 years. If one more opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to put forth his contentions 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 before the learned Trial Court, the principles of natural justice would stand complied with. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the ex-parte order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court- cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, directing the petitioner to pay enhanced maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month till the disposal of Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2021 in FCMC.No.23 of 2025. The petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arrears, if any, within four (04) months from the date of this order, failing which the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to recover the said 50% of maintenance from the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 25.09.2025 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.583 of 2025 Dated 25.09.2025 57 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 583 of 2025 25.09.2025 W KMS