1 APHC010349162023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 630/2023 Between: Nallagorla Gopichand, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Public Prosecutor (AP) 2. Sowjanya Lakkkula The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the order dated 14.06.2023 in F.C.O.P.No.566 of 2018 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, in D.V.C. No.54 of 2019, by order dated 17.01.2025, granted several reliefs, including maintenance of 2 Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner has failed to pay the said maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is further submitted that the order passed by the D.V.C. Court has not been complied with by the petitioner, and no steps have been taken by him for execution of the order in D.V.C. No.54 of 2019. Be that as it may, this Court, while admitting the criminal revision on 25.07.2023, granted stay, subject to the condition that the petitioner/husband shall deposit 50% of the arrears. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned Judge, Family Court, granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not in dispute. The employment of the petitioner as a Software Engineer in Tech Mahindra is also not disputed. The petitioner failed to establish that the 2nd respondent is capable of maintaining herself. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner had already married another woman in the year 2020 and has been residing with her. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent was constrained to leave the matrimonial home as the petitioner demanded additional dowry from her parents and drove her out of the house. Appreciation of evidence at the revisional stage cannot be undertaken by this 3 Court as per the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v State of Bihar1 wherein at Paragraph Nos.13 it is held as under: “13. ... In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court. In the absence of manifest illegality resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D Stephens v Nosibolla2 at Paragraph No.10 held as under: “10…The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under S. 439, Cr.P.C., is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the Govt. has o right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has taken a wrong view of the law or mis-appreciated the evidence on record.” 6. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ cannot invoke its revisional power as an Appellate Court and re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in the revision case as laid down in the decisions in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and D Stephens. 7. There is no procedural irregularity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, nor is there any flagrant miscarriage of justice. The learned Trial Court observed that even if, assuming for a moment for argument sake, the 2nd respondent had left the matrimonial company of the petitioner without any 1(2002) 6 SCC 650 2AIR 1951 SC 196 4 justifiable reason, the petitioner ought to have issued a notice requiring her to rejoin him. The failure of the petitioner to issue such notice reflects the pitiable circumstances of the 2nd respondent. It is also noted that the 2nd respondent has filed a petition seeking divorce. The learned Trial Court further observed that the petitioner had neglected the 2nd respondent without any reasonable cause. Such factual findings cannot be interfered with at the revisional stage. There are no merits in the criminal revision case, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of six (06) weeks. 8. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 14.10.2025 KMS 5 108 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 630/2023 14.10.2025 W KMS 6