APHC010149242019 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: 576/2019 Between: 1. B.PAIDITHALLI RAJU, R/O.RANIGARITHOTA, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP 2. BONI JYOTHI, R/O.RANIGARITHOTA, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA 3. BONI CHANDU LASYA, R/O.RANIGARITHOTA, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA ...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 decree and order dated 28-06-2018 passed in FCOP. 183/2016 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions judge cum Additional family judge, Vijayawada, Krishna Distict 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 condone the delay of 209 days in presenting CRLC.... 2019 before this 2 Hon’ble court filed against the Decree and order passed in FCOP.183/2016 dated 28-06-2018 on the file of the XIV Additional District and sessions judge cum Additional Family judge, Vijayawada number the above revision hear the same on merits IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FCOP. 183/2016 dated 28-06- 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Additional Family judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Pending disposal of the above criminal revision case Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN 2. 00 3. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGIDI YEDUKONDALU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. LEGAL AID 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 576/2019 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner/husband, against the impugned order and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District in FCOP(MC) No.183 of 2016, granting maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- each per month to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. Heard Mr.A.Sai Naveen, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.N.Yedukondalu, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State is in attendance. 3. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein are wife and husband. The respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the wife and child of the petitioner herein, filed FCOP(MC) No.183 of 2016 before the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, seeking maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge after due enquiry, granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- each per month to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, from the date of application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred. 4. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband, who was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month as a 4 Home Guard at the time of the passing of the impugned order. He would further submit that the maintenance awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- per month each to the wife and the daughter exceeds one-third of the petitioner’s/husband’s income. He would also submit that the petitioner had filed HMOP No. 170 of 2015 and obtained an ex-parte divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and that, to date, no petition has been filed to set aside the said decree. In view of these circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Judge erred in awarding maintenance to the wife, who had voluntarily deserted her husband. 5. Learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, would submit that the impugned order is a well reasoned one and does not warrant any interference of this Court, as the petitioner, being the husband, is legally bound to maintain his wife and minor daughter, and the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month each is reasonable and commensurate with the present cost of living. It is contended that there is no fixed rule that maintenance must be restricted to one-third of the husband’s income, and in any event, the petitioner has not produced reliable material to conclusively establish his exact earnings. The respondent would further submit that the alleged ex-parte decree of divorce in HMOP No. 170 of 2015 does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance, particularly when the circumstances surrounding the decree are disputed, and that mere allegations of desertion cannot absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife and child. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5 6. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and, upon proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has granted maintenance in a just and reasonable manner. The learned Judge has also rightly observed that, although the petitioner claimed to be earning only Rs. 12,000/- per month, he failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as salary slips or pay certificates, to substantiate the said claim. In the absence of such proof, the learned Judge was justified in drawing an appropriate inference and assessing the petitioner’s earning capacity on the basis of the material available on record. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned order and decree dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District in FCOP(MC) No.183 of 2016. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.02.2026. UPS 6 188 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 576/2019 Dt.20.02.2026 UPS