APHC010074772010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1364/2010 Between: 1. SAREPALLI SAMBAYYA, S/O. SAMBA SIVA VARA PRASAD @ RANGACHARYULU, CHILAKALAPUDI, DOOR NO. 19/34-1, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY PP AND 2 OTHERS, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. 2. SAREPALLI PARVATHI, W/O. SAMBAYYA, PENNADA, PALAKODERU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. 3. SAREPALLI RAMA DURGA RANGACHARI, S/O. SAMBAYYA, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 / MOTHER PENNADA, PALAKODERU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 present this Memorandum of Criminal Revision case against the order passed in Crl.R.P.No. 65 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram, W.G. District, dt.01.05.2010 IA NO: 1 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1954 OF 2010 2 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 dispense with the certified copy of the order in Crl.R.P.No. 65 of 2008 on the file of the III Addl. Dist and SJ., (FTC), Bhimavaram IA NO: 2 OF 2010(CRLRCMP 1972 OF 2010 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 suspend the order dated 01-05-2010 passed in Crl.RP.No. 65 of 2008 on the file of III Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Bhimavaram, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O KAILASHNATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: O R D E R 1. The Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „Cr.P.C.‟) is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Husband, assailing the Order dated 01.05.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2008 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram (for short, „the 1st Appellate Court‟) whereby the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the petition, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of order to the 1st petitioner, confirming the order dated 12.09.2008 in M.C.No.83 of 2007on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram (for short, „the Trial Court‟), wherein the Trial Court granting maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner till his attaining majority. 2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The case against Respondent No.3 is not pressed as per the Court's order dated 30.07.2010. 3 4. The brief facts of the petition are as follows: The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and the 2nd petitioner is their minor son. The marriage took place on 30.04.2004 at Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Bhimavaram, and they initially lived together. Soon after, the respondent and his family began harassing the petitioner. She noticed the respondent‟s illicit relationship with a woman named Durga. When confronted, she was sent out of the marital home on 05.10.2006. Despite the elders' intervention and advice, the respondent did not change, and the petitioner rejoined him. However, on 24.02.2007, the respondent and his family again expelled her while she was pregnant. Since then, she has been residing in Bhimavaram, where she gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 02.05.2007. Due to ongoing torture, the petitioner lodged a complaint at Palakoderu Police Station, resulting in Crime No.114 of 2007 under Section 498A of the IPC. The respondent owns landed property, leads a luxurious life, runs a milk and interest business, and earns approximately Rs.20,000/- per month. 5. The respondent/husband filed a counter, denying all allegations, stating that the 1st petitioner fell ill and went to her parents‟ home in Pennada on 02.08.2006, where she stayed without informing him of her condition. He denied neglecting or expelling her, attributing the separation to the petitioner‟s arrogance. The respondent issued a legal notice on 01.11.2007, requesting her to return and live with him, and remains willing to maintain the petitioners responsibly. The petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.288 of 2007 for partition of properties, falsely claiming them as joint family assets, while item No.1 is a vacant site and item No.2 is the trust property. The respondent refutes allegations regarding his milk and money-lending businesses as baseless. Additionally, he filed O.P.No.137 of 2007 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a Guardianship Welfare Petition in the District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, seeking custody of the minor 2nd petitioner, which was allowed. 4 6. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, and no documents were marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondent, the respondent and his brother-in-law were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. 7. The Trial court, upon hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the petition, directing the respondent/husband to pay maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- to the 2nd petitioner from the date of order, whereas the petition against the 1st petitioner was dismissed vide its Order dated 12.09.2008 in M.C.No.83 of 2007. 8. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner/wife filed the Criminal Revision Petition on the file of III Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram, challenging the Order dated 12.09.2008 in M.C.No.83 of 2007 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram, whereby the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2008 vide its Order dated 01.05.2010, as ordered supra. 9. Felt aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 01.05.2010 in Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2008, the 1st respondent/husband, filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: 1) Whether the impugned judgment for granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of the order to the 1st petitioner/wife is legally sustainable in law? 2) Whether the Judgment passed by the 1st Appellate Court warrants any interference? POINT Nos.1 & 2: 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband contends that, despite being informed of this Court‟s order in Crl.R.C.No.1632 of 2008, the Trial Court erred in entertaining the revision petition filed by respondents 2 and 3. He further argues that the Trial Court should have recognized that this Court‟s order 5 affirmed the validity of the Trial Court‟s decision and, therefore, ought to have dismissed the revision petition. 12. It is settled law as observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra V. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court”. 13. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court is to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the trial Court as well as the 1st appellate Court. This Court is not ordinarily required to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence which is already appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court unless it is found that there is clear non- appreciation of the evidence already on record or appreciation of inadmissible evidence, or that finding has been recorded without any evidence on record. If there is evidence on record on the point of decision formulated by the Courts below for concluding guilt, this Court is not required to enter into the records again to substitute its view in place of the view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 14. The record shows that respondents 2 and 3 filed M.C.No.83 of 2007 before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate, Bhimavaram, seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After hearing both parties, the learned Magistrate granted Rs.1,000/- monthly to the 2nd petitioner from the date of the order, while dismissing the 1st petitioner‟s claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner/husband filed Crl.R.C.No.1632 of 2008, but this Court, by order dated 29.01.2009, upheld the Trial Court‟s decision. The Crl.R.C.No.1632 of 2008 is limited to the issue of the grant of maintenance to the daughter. The correctness of the order insofar as it relates to the rejection of maintenance to the wife is not under challenge before this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 1632 of 2008. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 6 Accordingly, the dismissal of Crl.R.C. No. 1632 of 2008 does not, in any manner, affect or prejudice the adjudication of the present Revision Petition. Meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 filed Criminal Revision Petition No.65 of 2008, which was partly allowed, granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent/wife from the date of the order. The revision petition shows that the petitioner has not pressed the case against respondent No.3. Accordingly, the case against respondent No.3 is dismissed, and the revision is pursued only against respondent No.2 (the wife). 15. It is undisputed that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and the 2nd petitioner is their minor son. The 1st petitioner alleges harassment by the respondent due to his illicit relationship with a woman named Durga and states she has not been living with him. The respondent issued a registered legal notice dated 01.11.2007 demanding her return. Meanwhile, the 1st petitioner filed suit O.S.No.288 of 2007 for partition, claiming the properties as joint family assets. The respondent also filed O.P.No.137 of 2007 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a Guardianship Welfare Petition in the District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, seeking custody of their minor son. 16. Considering the admitted facts, this Court reviews the contentions in the maintenance case. Ex.R2 shows that H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2007 was disposed of by an ex parte order on 18.03.2008, while the maintenance case was still pending. The 1st petitioner alleges the respondent lives with a concubine named Durga. The respondent, in his evidence as R.W.1, stated he works as a clerk in a gold shop, earning Rs.4,000/- per month, and has no landed property. The Trial Court noted the respondent did not claim the 1st petitioner is self-sufficient or owns property. Based on the evidence of P.W.2‟s father, M.Tammayya Chary, who sought to settle the dispute by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for the wife and Rs.3,00,000/- for the minor son as permanent alimony, the Trial Court found P.W.2 responsible for the dispute. Given the respondent‟s admitted monthly income of Rs.4,000/-, the Trial Court granted maintenance. 7 17. In the given circumstances, this Court finds that granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner is not excessive. The 1st Appellate Court considered the husband‟s financial capacity in awarding this amount. Moreover, the husband has not specifically claimed that his wife is capable of supporting herself. 18. The District Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing sound and justifiable reasons after thorough analysis of the evidence in awarding maintenance to the 1st petitioner. The revision petitioner‟s request for interference lacks merit. A re-appreciation of the evidence reveals no misdirection or error by the 1st Appellate Court. Accordingly, its findings cannot be disturbed. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. Therefore, the criminal revision case is dismissed, and the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court is confirmed. Accordingly, the points are answered. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons stated above, the Criminal Revision Case No.1364 of 2010 fails and is hereby dismissed. The Order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 65 of 2008, dated 01.05.2010, stands confirmed. Interim orders granted, if any, shall stand vacated, and the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 12.08.2025 MS 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1364 of 2010 Date: 12.08.2025 MS