APHC010343982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 755/2025 Between: Karri Anji ...PETITIONER AND Karri Manasvini Saisri and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: K Subrahmanyam Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Babu Rao Pandiri 2. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 challenging the order dated 25.02.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2024 in M.C.No.1746 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Court, 1 the BNSS 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2025 Dated 07.10.2025 Vijayawada 2 granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3 Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is doing small business and earning only Rs.14,000/- per month. It is contended that directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 would cause financial hardship to him, as he is not even an educated person. On the other hand, the wife of the petitioner has studied up to 10th class and is earning a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month by working as an employee in a cloth store. 4. Alternatively, it is submitted that payment of Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be appropriate considering the financial capacity of the petitioner, and it is therefore urged to dispose of the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Sri Babu Rao Pandiri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Sri Durga Auto Spares at Hanumanpeta, Vijayawada, dealing in wholesale automobile spare parts, and is earning an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It is contended that the amount of Rs.5,000/- each granted by the learned Trial Court to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is meagre, having regard to the petitioner’s 2 Trial Court 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2025 Dated 07.10.2025 income. The petitioner is duty-bound to maintain his two daughters, irrespective of the income and avocation of his wife. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court, after duly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly granted temporary maintenance, and such an order does not warrant any interference on any ground. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 6. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the amount of Rs.5,000/- each awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the present-day scenario and standards, is not even adequate to meet their educational and nourishment needs. It is further submitted that since the learned Trial Court has already passed an order of interim maintenance, the same need not be interfered with in this revision. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged this Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I have perused the record. 8. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in Crl.M.P.No.544 of 2024 in MC.No.1746 of 2021 dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2025 Dated 07.10.2025 9. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not in dispute. Whether the petitioner is running a shop under the name and style of Sri Durga Auto Spares at Hanumanpeta, Vijayawada, and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month from his business is a matter of evidence to be adduced by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are represented by their mother. The 1st respondent is aged about 15 years and studying in 10th class, while the 2nd respondent is aged about 10 years and studying in 5th or 6th class. In the present-day context, an amount of Rs.5,000/- each towards temporary maintenance to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is undoubtedly insufficient. The respondents are entitled to receive proper education and nourishment, which must be ensured either by their mother or by the petitioner by paying a reasonable amount towards their maintenance. Whether the wife of the petitioner, who is also representing respondent Nos.1 and 2, is employed in any establishment and earning Rs.25,000/- per month is a matter to be determined upon production of sufficient evidence by the petitioner. At this stage, this Court cannot record a finding on that aspect. 10. Be that as it may, the petitioner, being the father of respondent Nos.1 and 2, has a duty to maintain his two children, irrespective of the income of his wife. As mentioned supra, in the present-day scenario, the amount of Rs.5,000/- each awarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is neither exorbitant nor paltry. It is an admitted fact that both the minor children are in the care and custody of their mother who is maintaining them with her earnings, if any. 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2025 Dated 07.10.2025 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim maintenance granted by the learned Trial Court to respondent Nos.1 and 2 at Rs.5,000/- each is neither exorbitant nor burdensome to the petitioner. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance within a period of three (3) months in three equal installments. The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of F.C.O.P. Nos.1746 of 2021, 704 of 2021, and 466 of 2022, filed for grant of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, at the earliest possible time. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 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: 07.10.2025 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.755 of 2025 Dated 07.10.2025 116 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 755 of 2025 07.10.2025 W KMS