1 APHC010016822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 53/2025 Between: 1. SIKHAKOLLI KUMAR @ DURGA NAGA KALI RAGHAVENDRA GANESH KUMAR, RAGHAVENDRA GANESH KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O VENKATA DURGA VARA PRASAD, GUNNY BAG BUSINESS R/O .D.NO.1-3/18-46/A, THULLURUVARI STREET, NEAR KIRANA MERCHANTS KALYANA MANDAPAM, KAMAKOTI NAGAR, VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA -12, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SIKHAKOLLI KRISHNA PRIYANKA KOLLIPARA KRISHNA PRIYANKA, , W/O GANESH KUMAR @ DURGA NAGA KALI RAGHAVENDRA GANESH KUMAR, D/O KOLLIPARA BHANU PRADAD, AGED 28 YEARS. SELF EMPLOYED, R/O D.NO. 27-5- 26A/1, GOPUVARISTREET, GOVERNORPET, VIJAYAWADA -2, NTR DISTRICT. 2. SIKHAKOLLI AJASRA, D/O GANESH KUMAR @ DURGA NAGA KALI RAGHAVENDRA GANESH KUMAR, AGED 8 YEARS, BEING MINOR REP.BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E, THE 1ST PETITIONER SIKHAKOLLI KRISHNA PRIYANKA @ KOLLIPARA KRISHNA PRIYANKA. 3. SIKHAKOLLI ASUTOSH, D/O GANESH KUMAR @ DURGA NAGA KALI RAGHAVENDRA GANESH KUMAR, AGED 6 YEARS, (BEING MINOR REP.BY HER MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E, THE 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN) 2 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set a side the interim maintenance order dated 18-11-2024 passed in CrI.M.P.No: 343 of 2023 in FCOP(MC).No: 241 of 2023, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge- cum-Judge, Addl. Family Court, Vijayawada in the interest of justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the interim maintenance order dated 18-11-2024 passed in CrI.M.P.No: 343 of 2023 in FCOP(MC).NO: 241 OF 2023, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Addl. Family Court, Vijayawada with respect to the 1st respondent herein till pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Case and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YADAVALLI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B VAMSI KRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 53/2025 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the revision petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.343 of 2023 in FCOP (MC) No.241 of 2023 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-cum- Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 14.04.2012 at Vijayawada as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born on 20.01.2014 and 20.06.2017 respectively. It is the case of the respondents that at the time of marriage, substantial dowry in the form of cash, gold ornaments and other valuables was presented as per the demands of the petitioner and his family members. It is further alleged that after a brief period of cordial marital life, the petitioner and his family members subjected the 1strespondent to physical and mental cruelty demanding additional dowry.It is further stated that due to such harassment, several mediations were conducted in the presence of elders, but the petitioner did not mend his ways. The 1st respondent also lodged a complaint, which resulted in registration of a criminal case in Crime No.203 of 2019, which is now pending as C.C. No.7999 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The 1st respondent 4 contends that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her minor children, who are pursuing their education, and therefore filed a petition seeking interim maintenance.The learned Family Court, upon considering the material available on record and the affidavits filed by both parties, partly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.5,000/- each per month to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the date of the order till disposal of the main petition. 3. Heard Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case contending that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and passed without proper appreciation of facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the 1strespondent voluntarily withdrew from the matrimonial home and is not entitled to maintenance. He would further submit that the 1st respondent is running a school under the name “Little Steps” and is earning sufficient income to maintain herself and the children. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to consider the financial liabilities of the petitioner and passed the order without assigning proper reasons or recording a finding that the 1strespondent has no means to maintain herself. 5 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty and that she has no independent source of income. Learned counsel would further submit that, the allegation that she is running a school is not supported by any documentary evidence. He would further submit that the petitioner is engaged in business activities and is earning sufficient income and that the Family Court has rightly granted reasonable interim maintenance. 6. The point for consideration is whether the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance warrants any interference by this Court as prayed for? 7. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. It is well settled that the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is limited until and unless the order under challenge suffers from illegality, material irregularity or perversity, this Court would not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. The main contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is running a school and earning income. However, no documentary evidence has been filed to substantiate the said contention. It is also not in dispute that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minor children and are dependent on their parents for their maintenance and education. The obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and children is both a legal and moral duty. In the absence of any reliable material to show that the 1st respondent has sufficient independent income, 6 she cannot be denied interim maintenance. The learned Family Court, having considered the financial status of both parties and the needs of the respondents, has awarded a reasonable and modest amount towards interim maintenance, and this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the said order warranting interference. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision petitioner has failed to make out any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.343 of 2023 in FCOP (MC) No.241 of 2023 by the XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada. However, it is made clear that the parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned trial Court during the course of enquiry in the main petition, and the learned trial Judge shall decide the matter independently and without influenced by any observations made in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026. KKV 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 146 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 53/2025 Date: 07.03.2026. KKV