. 0l.0ol.APHC010128992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR, S/O E. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. FLAT. NO. 403, RAMAKRISHNA RESIDENCY, PLOT NO.40 AND 46, OPP. L AND N RESTAURANT, NEAR MAKTHA MOSQUE, J.P. NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD TELANGANA 1. ELURU RAMYA SRI KAKANI KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 8 CENTRE, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT WORKING AS SENIOR LECTURER, NALANDA DEGREE COLLEGE, 3RD FLOOR, IGMS COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to set aside the order dated 24-12- FCOP(MC).835 of 2024 on the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026 ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR, S/O E. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. FLAT. NO. 403, RAMAKRISHNA RESIDENCY, PLOT NO.40 AND 46, OPP. L AND N RESTAURANT, NEAR MAKTHA MOSQUE, J.P. NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD- ...PETITIONER AND ELURU RAMYA SRI KAKANI RAMYA SRI, W/O ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 8-252, KAMAYYATHOPU CENTRE, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT - WORKING AS SENIOR LECTURER, NALANDA DEGREE COLLEGE, 3RD FLOOR, IGMS COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, LABBIPET, N.T.R. DISTRICT-520010 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to set aside - 2024 passed in CRL.MP.No.52/2025 in FCOP(MC).835 of 2024 on the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR, S/O E. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. FLAT. NO. 403, RAMAKRISHNA RESIDENCY, PLOT NO.40 AND 46, OPP. L AND N RESTAURANT, NEAR MAKTHA -500 049 ...PETITIONER RAMYA SRI, W/O ELURU VEERENDRA 252, KAMAYYATHOPU - 520 007 WORKING AS SENIOR LECTURER, NALANDA DEGREE COLLEGE, 3RD FLOOR, IGMS COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, LABBIPET, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to set aside 2024 passed in CRL.MP.No.52/2025 in FCOP(MC).835 of 2024 on the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court -Cum- XIV 2 Additional District And Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, 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 pleased to grant to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the Order passed in CRL.MP. No. 52/2025 in FCOP(M.C). 835 of 2024 on the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court -Cum- XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh dated 24-12-2025, pending disposal of the above revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.(MC) No.835 of 2024 by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was granted in favour of the respondent-wife. 2. Heard Sri Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the revision petitioner– husband, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court committed an error in granting interim maintenance despite recording findings that the respondent–wife failed to establish the petitioner’s income and also failed to disclose her own income and expenditure. It is further contended that the respondent–wife voluntarily deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause and she is disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It is also urged that the quantum granted is arbitrary and not based on proper assessment of income. 4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and granted reasonable interim maintenance, and that the order does not warrant interference. 5. Considering the submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of 4 the petitioner and that both are living separately. The reasons for such separation, including allegations of desertion and cruelty, are matters which require detailed adjudication during the trial in the main petition. The scope of consideration in the present revision is limited to examine the correctness of the interim maintenance granted. At the stage of interim maintenance, a detailed examination of disputed facts is neither warranted nor permissible. 6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties, observed that though the respondent–wife failed to establish the income of the petitioner and also did not furnish complete particulars of her expenditure, the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife cannot be ignored. 7. In the present case, the trial Court has exercised its discretion and awarded a modest sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. This Court does not find the said amount to be excessive or unreasonable warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the revision petitioner regarding desertion, independent income of the respondent–wife, and other disputed facts are matters to be decided in the main proceedings and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main F.C.O.P. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of 5 receipt of a copy of this order, without granting adjournments in a causal way by way of mere asking. It is made clear that both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of trial, and the learned Judge shall decide the matter on its own merits, without influenced by any observations made in this order. The arrears of interim maintenance, if any, shall be paid by the revision petitioner in four (4) equal monthly installments As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2026 KKV 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 247 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026 Date 11.03.2026 KKV