APHC010058962016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 775/2016 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 23/2026 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 775/2016 Between: 1. VASIREDDY RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, - ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT VASIREDDY RADHA AND ANOTHER, - ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 1091 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 APHC011417482016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 23/2026 Between: 1. SMT VASIREDDY RADHA, - ...PETITIONER AND 1. VASIREDDY RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD AND ANOTHER, - ...RESPONDENT Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to file this Criminal Revision Case against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned XIV Additional District Judge-Cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada in M.C.No.174 OF 2013, dated 08-02-2016 IA NO: 1 OF 2016(CRLRCMP 2440 OF 2016 Petition 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 condone the delay of 44 days in filing the above CrI.R.C. of 2016 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 775/2016 AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 23/2026 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two Criminal Revision Cases are preferred against an Order dated 08.02.2016 passed by XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.C.No.174 of 2013. The petitioner of Crl.R.C No.775 of 2016 is the husband and Petitioner of Crl.R.C (SR) No.29362 of 2016 is the wife. The petitioner in Crl.R.C (SR) No.29362 of 2016 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the learned Family Judge, Vijayawada, praying for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) per month towards monthly maintenance. The learned court below, after considering the merits and materials, allowed the petition, directing the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month to the petitioner towards maintenance, from the date of petition. Being aggrieved by that Order, the husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.775 of 2016 and wife preferred Crl.R.C (SR) No.29362 of 2016. It appears that Crl.R.C.(SR) No.29362 of 2016 filed in delay, accordingly, the delay in preferring Crl.R.C.(SR) No.29362 of 2016 be hereby condoned for the purpose of joint hearing of both the Criminal Revision Cases. 2. The learned Counsel for the husband submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal. The income of the husband was Rs.19,690/- at that time of passing impugned Order. Son and 4 daughter of the parties living with the husband and husband is maintaining them in respect of his status and suffering. Wife is having her specific income, that-is-why she is not entitled to get any maintenance. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the wife submits that the maintenance amount granted is very meager one, the husband was working in the Registration Department, drawing salary of Rs.31,995/- per month in December, 2015. Thus, the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the facts and maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- would be justified. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below, it appears to me that though the off-springs are residing with the husband, but the wife being destitute lady entitled to get maintenance. Maintenance mount of Rs.5,000/- per month was allowed, it appears to me that Rs.5,000/- per month maintenance was ordered in the year 2016 considering the income of the husband was Rs.19,931/- per month. Now-a-days, the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- is very meager one, though the justification of impugned Order in the year 2016 has to be considered on the basis of the income of Rs.31.995/- per month the husband, it appears to me that the monthly maintenance towards the wife of Rs.5,000/- p.m on the basis of the income of the husband on Rs.31,991/- in the year - 2016 is commensurate and justified. 4. Under the above observation, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers no illegality. It appears that the petitioner is regularly paying Rs.3,500/- per month since the filing of the instant Criminal Revision case. The petitioner is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month, from the date of filing of the 5 application i.e., from August, 2013 as order by the learned Court below. The husband is further directed to pay arrears maintenance amount within six (06) months from the date of passing of this order, by equal installments. The wife is at liberty to approach appropriate Court having jurisdiction to enhance the maintenance amount according to Law. 5. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Case No.775 of 2016 and Crl.R.C. (SR) No.29362 of 2016 are disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:08.12.2025. KS. 6 145 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 775 of 2016 And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 23 of 2026 DATED:08.12.2025. KS