APHC010053962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 120/2026 Between: 1. MUDEY LOVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, HINDU, SYSTEM SUPERVISOR, MGBS BUS STAND, HYDERABAD AND PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NEAR JAYABEEM COMMUNITY HALL BEHIND RAILWAY STATION, KONDAYAPALEM, KAKINADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI 2. MUDEY RANJITHA, AGED 37 YEARS,W/O LOVA KUMAR, HINDU. R/O MALLAYYAPETA RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIDEVI JAMPANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 120 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 8the BNSS9),, has been filed by the petitioner/respondent challenging the order, dated 02.07.2025 passed in FCOP No.195 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IX Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is husband of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking to grant maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month from the petitioner herein and the learned trial Court after considering material and evidence on record, granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the petition. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/respondent preferred the present revision with delay of 143 days. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both parties entered into compromise and as per the terms, the petitioner paid Rs.2.00 lakhs and failed to pay the remaining amount, due to which, the respondent No.2 filed petition seeking for maintenance and the trial Court ordered maintenance as above. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is ready to pay the remaining amount as per the terms of 3 compromise. The petitioner is having old aged mother and also unmarried sister and brother who are depending upon him. 4. As could be seen from the record, the gross salary of the petitioner even according to him is Rs.49,000/-, out of which, Rs.3000/- is granted towards maintenance to the respondent No.2. The learned trial Court after examining the facts and upon appreciation of the evidence on record, in a right perspective granted maintenance which is a meager amount. Now, the petitioner preferred the present revision with delay of 143 days. This Court finds no reason to condone and delay as well as interfere with the impugned orders. 5. 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: 04.02.2026 ARB 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 120/2026 Date: 04.02.2026 ARB