APHC010110582019 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: 394/2019 Between: 1. E.GOVINDU, S/O. APPA RAO, HINDU, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC- AUTO DRIVER, R/O. NEW RAJARAJESWARIPET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. E MANGA, W/O. GOVINDU, D/O. LATE GARLA NUKARAJU, HINDU, AGED 31 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA 2. EPU DURGA PAVANI, ,D/O. GOVINDU, HINDU, AGED 12 YEARS. 3. EPU GITHANJALI, ,D/O. GOVINDU, HINDU, AGED 9 YEARS. 4. EPU BANU TEJA, , S/O. GOVINDU, HINDU, AGED 7 YEARS. (RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE BEING MINORS, REP.BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, 1ST RESPONDENT) 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. 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 order and decree dated 15-02-2019 passed in MC No. 156 of 2017 passed by XIV Additional District and Session Judges-Cum- Additional Family Judge, at Vijayawada and pass 2 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 suspend order and decree dated 15-02-2019 passed in MC No.156 of 2017 passed by the XIV Additional District & Session Judges-Cum- Additional Family Judge, at Vijayawada and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 394/2019 JUDGMENT: When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance. 2. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/husband, against the impugned order and decree dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Additional Family Judge, at Vijayawada in MC.No.156 of 2017, wherein, an amount Rs.3,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 therein totaling Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and children. Since, this is a revision preferred against the impugned order, this Court would like to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. A fair look at the impugned order would show that there is a clear observation made by the learned Judge that the petitioners i.e., the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are the wife and children of the petitioner herein, have no means to maintain themselves. The petitioner No.1/respondent No.1 who is the wife lodged a case against her husband/petitioner herein, in Cr.No.676 of 2013 under Section 498-A of IPC and the case ended in acquittal. It is the contention of the husband that the wife left the matrimonial house without any reasonable cause. On appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and RW-1, on record, the learned Judge rightly 4 observed that the husband, though has taken a plea that he made efforts through elders to reunite his family, he did not choose to file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights or issued any legal notice requesting the wife to come back to the matrimonial house. The record would further show that it is alleged against the husband that he has an extra martial relation with one Bujji. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the wife along with three children are living separately and they have no means to maintain themselves. Learned Judge has appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and came to the conclusion that the wife has reasonable cause to stay separately from the husband. The learned Trial Court taking into consideration, the fact the husband is an auto driver and also keeping in mind the age of the children i.e., the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 therein/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, awarded maintenance @Rs.3,000/- per month each to the wife and three children. 4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is a well reasoned one and there are no grounds warranting the interference of this Court. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.02.2026. UPS 5 183 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 394/2019 Dt.20.02.2026 UPS