APHC010030772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 132/2026 Between: 1. ADABALA RAVI SANKAR,, S/O SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED 41 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O D. NO.59-5-20/V P AND T COLONY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2. SMT ADABALA SIVGOWRI, W/O RAVISANKAR, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, WORKER, R/O D.NO.3-15A, NARSAPURAM VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. KUM ADABALA SIRI, D/O RAVISANKAR, HINDU, AGED 12 YEARS, (MINOR REP. BY LET 2ND RESPONDENT R/O D.N0.3-15A, NARSAPURAM VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 132 of 2026 & I.A.No.1 of 2026 Common Order: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),, has been filed by the petitioner/respondent challenging the order, dated 24.01.2020 passed in M.C.No.43 of 2018 by the learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent No.3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking to grant maintenance of Rs.5000/- each per month from the petitioner herein and the learned trial Court after considering material and evidence on record, granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd respondent from the date of order i.e., 24.01.2020. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/respondent preferred the present revision with delay of 1727 days. 3. As could be seen from the impugned order, it is not the case that notice was not served on the parties. The petitioner herein appeared before the Court and filed counter, but did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. The learned trial Court after examining the facts and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, in a right perspective granted 4 maintenance as stated above. Now, the petitioner preferred the present revision with a huge delay of 1727 days without assigning any substantial reasons and hence, this court is not inclined to condone such huge delay. 4. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 09.02.2026 ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 132/2026 Date: 09.02.2026 ARB