1 APHC010187142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 393/2026 Between: 1. K. JAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O SHAFI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/O RAMALAYAM STREET, GAJULAMANDEM VILLAGE POST AND MANDAL TIRUPATHI DISTRICT - 517520 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. HIGH COURT OF A.P, AT AMARAVATHI. 2. G AKHIRUN ALAIS SABIHA, W/O K. JAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. DEPENDENT, D/O. G. MAHABOOB BASHA, NOW RESIDING AT DIGUVA VEEDHI KALAKADA TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AADHAR NO.716606685082. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI 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: 393/2026 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the Order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vayalpad in M.C.No.11 of 2024, granting maintenance @Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein. 2. Heard Mr.Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned counsel for the respondent-state. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent No.2 against whom, a case in M.C.No.11 of 2024 has been filed by the respondent No.2 seeking maintenance. He would further submit that the learned Trial Judge without considering the financial constraints and statutory liabilities of the petitioner including his personal expenses, dependent family members and other unavoidable commitments, granted maintenance @Rs.8,000/- per month to the wife, though she is capable of maintaining herself. 4. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of appeal. The scope of interference under revision is limited and is to be exercised only when there is a patent illegality, material 3 irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge suffer from jurisdictional error or are manifestly erroneous, this Court cannot interfere with the order. In the present case, the petitioner/husband, having participated in the trial before the Trial Court, chose not to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings. On careful perusal of the impugned Order of the learned Trial Court, there are no material irregularities. There is no flagrant miscarriage of justice. No perverse findings. Hence, this criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the aforementioned premises, since there are no grounds to entertain revision against the impugned Order, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 10.04.2026 S D P 4 251 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 393/2026 Date 10.04.2026 S D P