WAPHC010052232026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2026 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 117/2026 Between: 1. KALINGAPATNAM ESWARARAO, S/O LATE NOOKARAJU,AGED 46 YEARS, OCC DRIVER,RESIDING NEAR AKKINI VEEDHI, NEAR RAMA MANDIR,SALURU TOWN MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KALINGAPATNAM YAMUNA, W/O K. ESWARARAO,AGED 31 YEARS, R/O HNO 13-5-15/1,GOLKONDA REVU, SRIKAKULAM TOWN DISTRICT. 2. KALINGAPATNAM HIMABINDU, D/O K. ESWARARAO,AGED 9 YEARS, R/O HNO 13-5-15/1,GOLKONDA REVU, SRIKAKULAM TOWN DISTRICT. 3. KALINGAPATNAM YASHASWINI, D/O K. ESWARARAO,AGED 7 YEARS, R/O HNO 13-5-15/1,GOLKONDA REVU, SRIKAKULAM TOWN DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 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 2 Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order in FCMC No: 34 of 2023 dated 0.06.2025 on the file of the Learned Judge, Family Court cum III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 (117) days in filing the above criminal revision case as against the orders dated 30.06.2025 in FCMC No:34 of 2023 on the file of Family Court Cum III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, before this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the main CrI.RC and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 grant stay of operation of order in FCMC No: 34 of 2023 dated 30-06-2025 on the file of the Learned Judge, Family Court cum III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2026 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 117/2026 COMMON JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 30.06.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, in F.C.M.C.No.34 of 2023, whereby maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.2,500/- each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month was awarded along with Rs.3,000/- towards costs of litigation. 2. Heard Mr. Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State. 3. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case. 4. The Petitioner herein is the husband of Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed FCMC No. 34 of 2023 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, seeking monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Trial Judge partly allowed the petition in favor of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by order dated 30.06.2025, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.2,500/- per month each to 4 Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation costs. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Criminal Revision is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.2,500/- each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 per month under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is illegal, highside and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a Driver in APSRTC, earning only Rs.23,434/- per month after statutory deductions. Learned counsel would further submit that, grant of maintenance is excessive and arbitrary. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is justified and well founded and it needs no interference of this Court. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and on a perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that, the Respondents have demonstrated need for maintenance, and the Petitioner, being an able-bodied person, is bound to support his wife and children. The learned Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the impugned order is justified and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The quantum awarded is reasonable and needs no interference of this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to interfere in the said order. This Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of 117 days in filing the revision case. 5 8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 03.02.2026. UPS 6 233 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2026 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 117/2026 Dt.03.02.2026 UPS 7