APHC010026662019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 148/2019 Between: 1 . K.SIVA NAGARARJU, R/O MAIN ROAD, KATURU VILLAGE, VUYYURU MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . SK FAKZANA SUITANA, R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, OPP. PERIYAR UNIVERSITY, KOTTAGOUNDAMAPATTI POST, OMALURTALUK SALEM DIST. 2 . KOTHURUN DEVISRI LAKSHMI NGA VENKATA VEER SAMEER, MINOR, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN E., 1ST PETITIONER,R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, OPP. PERIYAR UNIVERSITY, KOTTAGOUNDAMAPATTI POST, OMALURUR TALUK, SALEM DIS. 3 . KOTHURU SARAH, MINOR, REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, E., 1ST PETITIONER,R/O HOUSING BOARD COLONY, OPP. PERIYAR UNIVERSITY, KOTTAGOUNDAMAPATTI POST, OMALURUR TALUK, SALEM DIS. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceeding including execution of the order and decree dated 01.10.2018 passed in F.C.Op.M.C.No.190/2015 by the Court of the XIV Addl. District by Sessions Judge cum Addl. Family Judge, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 . CHALASANI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 GAURY SRINADH CHAUDARY R 2 LEGAL AID 2 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) preferred by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 01.10.2018 passed in FCOP(MC) No.202 of 2016 on the file of the Court of XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge- cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the Petitioner herein and respondent No.1 is a love marriage. The petitioner herein is the husband and he belongs to Hindu religion. The Respondent No.1 belongs to Muslim religion. Their marriage took place on 20.06.2007 under Special Marriage Act at Sub Registrar Office, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. During their wedlock, they blessed with two children, i.e. respondents 2 and 3 (son and daughter respectively). It is further averred that the couple lived happily, and thereafter, some disputes arose between them. The Petitioner filed FCOP No.190 of 2015 under Section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The Petitioner filed FCOP (GWOP) No.413 of 2017, under Section 7 to 10 of Guardian and Wards Act to declare the Petitioner as guardian of his minor children/respondents 2 and 3 herein. The respondents (wife and minor children) filed FCOP (MC) No.202 of 2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for payment of maintenance of Rs.5000/- per 3 month to the respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondents 2 and 3 (children). The Learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, by common order dated 01.10.2018 allowed FCOP No.190 of 2015 and dissolved the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 by way of decree of divorce. The FCOP (GWOP) No.413 of 2017 is partly allowed granting visitation rights to the Petitioner/Husband to visit the minor children on the public holidays. The FCOP(MC) No.202 of 2016 is partly allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the minor children (respondents 2 and 3) and dismissed against the respondent No.1/wife. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case against the common order, dated 01.10.2018 passed in FCOP(MC) No.202 of 2016, challenging the grant of monthly maintenance to the children as exorbitant. Heard Sri Ch. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Ramineni Gaury Srinadh Chowdary, legal aid appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that petitioner never neglected the respondents 2 and 3 i.e. the children and they all lived together till 2014 and that respondent No.1 i.e. the wife forcibly took the children and that by the impugned order, the trial Court, rejected the custody of the children. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not supposed to pay maintenance to the children. Even the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- each to 4 respondents 2 and 3(children) is usurious, excess and exorbitant and petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount. The Petitioner is ready and willing to take custody and look after the children with utmost care and affection. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1 is an employee in MVR Infrastructure and Tollways Private Limited and is drawing a monthly net salary of Rs.36,281/- and she is an earning member. The legal aid counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that petitioner did not show any love and affection towards the wife and children and he never made any payments towards maintenance to the minor children. Since their birth, the children are under love and care of their mother i.e. respondent No.1 herein. It is represented in MC No.202 of 2016 that he is not having any movable and immovable properties, whereas, in GWOP No.413 of 2017, he stated that he could spend good amounts for education of the children. The inconsistent statements of the Petitioner would show that he has no love and affection towards the wife and children. The order of the Trial Court in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each to the minor children is just and reasonable and there are no vitiating grounds to entertain this criminal revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed. As can be seen from the common order impugned, it is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is a love marriage and respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioner and Respondent No.1 are working in a private company. The couple is separated by way of decree of Divorce. The Trial Court granted visitation rights to the Petitioner to visit the 5 minor children on public holidays. Learned Trial Judge rightly observed that merely because the father of the children is in better financial position than the mother, it does not mean that children’s interest would be best served. So far as the financial capacity of the Petitioner is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner is working in a private company and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. Merely because, the minor children are not given custody to the petitioner/father, it cannot be a ground for evading monthly maintenance to the children. Now a days, the cost of living is more and hefty amounts are to be spent for the children towards various needs and necessities including education. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity in the impugned order granting Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor children of the petitioner herein, towards their monthly maintenance. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal revision case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, Petitioner is at liberty to recourse his remedy before the Trial Court in case of any change of circumstances. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 20.01.2026 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 148 of 2019 20.01.2026 Mjl /*