APHC010048292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 185/2019 Between: 1. A.PRABDHVATHI, D.NO. 37-8/1-65A, WOODPET, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. A IMANYUAL, R/O. PEDDAPUDI, KUCHIPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2. APPIKATLA EBINESER, R/O.PEDDAPURI, KUCHIPUDI MANDAL 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI ...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 set aside the judgment of the Prl.Family court cum IV Additional district and sessions judge court, Vijayawada in MC. 22 of 2012 dated 09-08-2018 by allowing the Mc thereby grant maintenance tot he petitioner IA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 condone the delay of 101 days in preferring the revision petition before the honourable court Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. PONNAM RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 185/2019 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner, against the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada, in MC.No.22 of 2012 by dismissing the M.C., for want of jurisdiction. 2. None represented for the petitioner. The proceeding sheet dated 06.10.2025 would also show that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Ms.Ch.Lakshmi Mounika, learned counsel is appointed as Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Secretary, Legal Services Committee is directed to issue proceedings accordingly. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance. 3. The petitioner herein is the wife who filed MC.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada, seeking maintenance against her husband and son. The learned Trial Court after due consideration dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 09.08.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present revision. 4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the petition on its merits instead of dismissing the same for want of jurisdiction. The petitioner, who is the wife, 4 filed M.C. No.22 of 2012 before the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, seeking maintenance against her husband and son. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition by judgment dated 09.08.2018 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that during the proceedings, due to fear and anxiety associated with court proceedings, the petitioner mistakenly stated that she had been residing at Avanigadda since 2011, whereas the correct fact is that she had been residing there only till 2011. The said statement was made out of confusion and not with the intention of misleading the Court. The learned Trial Court ought not to have relied solely on such an inadvertent statement to decide the issue of jurisdiction and should have considered the petition on merits. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction after properly considering the provisions of Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the said provision, a maintenance petition has to be filed before the Court within whose jurisdiction the respondent resides or where the parties last resided together, and the forum cannot be chosen merely for the convenience of the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, upon examining the material on record, rightly observed that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The explanation now sought to be given by the petitioner regarding her statement about residence is only an afterthought and cannot be a ground to confer jurisdiction on a Court which 5 otherwise does not possess it. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction is proper and does not warrant any interference. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and, upon proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, correctly came to the conclusion that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned Trial Court has also rightly taken into consideration the requirements under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that a forum cannot be chosen merely for the convenience of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Vijayawada, in MC.No.22 of 2012. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.02.2026. UPS 6 225 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 185/2019 Dt.20.02.2026 UPS