APHC010078782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 169/2026 Between: 1. DOGIPARTHI BHAVANI SHANKAR PRASAD, S/O VENKAT RAMANA ALIAS RAMA RAOAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, BUSINESS,RESIDENT KUKATLAPALLI VILLAGE BALIKURAVA MANDALAMBAPATLA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. DOGIPARTHI HEMA VANI, W/O BHAVANI SHANKAR PRASAD,AGENT, 21 YEARS. DOORNO13-177 SUDHAVARIPALAM CHILAKALURIPETA TOWN AND MANDALAM PALNADUDISTRICT. 3. DOGIPARTHI CHAYANK VENKATA SRI SAI, S/O BHAVANI SHANKAR PRASADAGED ABOUT ONE AND HALF YEAR DOORNO13-177 SUDHAVARIPALAM CHILAKALURIPETA TOWN AND MANDALAM PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V SRIRAMA MURTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 169 of 2026 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 „the BNSS‟),, has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.144 of 2024 in M.C.No.41 of 2023 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chilakaluripet. 2. Heard Sri G. V. Srirama Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erroneously granted interim maintenance without any documentary proof regarding the income of the petitioner. The petitioner is running a petty “buddy shop” which was also shut down due to mental stress caused by respondent No.1. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1/State. 5. A perusal of the material on record shows that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to their relationship as husband and wife. Admittedly, the child is in the custody of the mother, i.e., respondent No.2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that a conservative assessment would indicate that an amount of not less than 4 Rs.100/- per day is required to meet the basic living expenses, the trial Court granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent Nos.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2, which is just and proper. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well- reasoned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main case preferably within a period of two (2) months and to record evidence strictly in accordance with law, as required for adjudication of the maintenance proceedings under the provisions of BNSS. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 16.02.2026 ARB 5 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 169/2026 Date: 16.02.2026 ARB