APHC010048372019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 583/2019 Between: Srinivasa Reddy ...PETITIONER AND P Rajani and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B RAMA KOTESWARA RAO 2. BALALAKSHMI REDDY EDARA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 2. The Criminal Revision Case is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), challenging 2 the order dated 28.01.2019 passed in M.C.No.21 of 2010 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole whereby the maintenance case was allowed in part, granting Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The husband was examined as R.W.1 and the wife was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of the wife, Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the husband. 4. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 5. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in M.C.No.21 of 2010 dated 28.01.2019, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6. It is the contention of the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had established ‘Sree Roopkala Matching Centre’, Ongole, with his own funds in the name of respondent No.1. The learned counsel filed a photocopy of Form-II issued by the Labour Department in support of the said contention. However, this photocopy cannot be looked into at this stage, as nothing prevented the petitioner from filing the document in an admissible form to establish that the said matching centre was set up in the name of the 1st respondent and that she was earning sufficient income from the said business. 7. Respondent No.1 denied the said contention and asserted that she was unable to maintain herself and was not earning sufficient income. Respondent No.1 filed Ex.P2, comprising four fee receipts, to show that she was imparting 3 education to respondent No.2, their daughter. The petitioner has a statutory duty to maintain his wife and daughter. No document was filed by the petitioner to show that respondent No.1 had sufficient independent income. Mere oral and vague assertions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, reasonably passed the order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.1 and 2 from the date of filing of the petition. 9. On a careful perusal of the entire judgment, there is no flagrant miscarriage of justice and there were no material irregularities. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Trial is required to be upheld by dismissing the Revision Case. 10. For the above reasons, the Criminal Revision Case fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 02.01.2026 KMS 4 115 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 583/2019 Date:02.01.2026 KMS