APHC010158122024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 316/2024 Between: 1. MADUGULA NAGARAJU, S/O GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-51-8/1, INDIRA COLONY, NEAR MUNICIPAL OFFICE GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2. MADUGULA YERRAMSETTI SATYA BHAWANI, W 0 NAGARAJU. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. R/O D.NO.3-4-599, SUBBARAO PET, 8TH WARD, TADEPALLIGUADEM - 534101. 3. MADUGULA ABHISHEK, W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-4-599, SUBBARAO PET, 8TH WARD, TADEPALLIGUADEM - 534101. (THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEING MINOR REP. BY THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to set aside the order in Crl.MP. 165 of 2022 in MC.41/2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District Dt 09-12-2022 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 384 days in filing the revision against the docket order in CrI.MP. 165 of 2022 in MC.4I/202I on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District Dt:09-12-2022 and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to stay the operation of the docket order in Crl.MP. 165 of 2022 in MC.41/2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District Dt:09-12-2022 pending disposal of the main revision and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the Petitioner/Respondent aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 09.12.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2022 in MC No.41 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to file the present case are that: i) the Petitioner herein is the husband and respondent No.2 herein is the wife and their marriage was performed on 18.03.2012 at Tadepalligudem as per caste customs and immediately after marriage, they lived at Indira Colony, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 presented cash of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry, gold ornaments and bike to the petitioner and incurred marriage expenses. During wedlock, the couple blessed with respondent No.3/son. ii) The couple lived happily for four months and thereafter, taking advantage of the active support of his mother, elder brother and elder brother’s wife, petitioner used to beat the respondent No.2 for additional dowry and tortured her in all means. All of them threatened respondent No.2 that she would be thrown out if the additional dowry is not brought from her parents’ house. Several mediations took place for rejoining the couple, but in vain. Due to misunderstandings, they are living separately. iii) The respondent No.1 lodged criminal complaint against the petitioner/husband and his family members, which is registered as a case in Crime 3 No.34 of 2021 of Tadepalligudem Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. iv) Petitioner/husband filed FCOP No.432 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam for restitution of conjugal rights. v) Since the father of the respondent No.1 died in 2017, mother died in 2002, respondent No.1 has nobody to look after her and the son. iii) At the relevant point of time, Petitioner /husband is working in Electricity Department, Gajuwada, Visakhapatnam and used to get Rs.70,000/- per month besides having three portion building at Gajuwaka which yields rents of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum. Whereas, the respondent No.2 is completely dependent on her brother along with the children. vi) Respondents 1 and 3 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance vide MC No.41 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, seeking monthly maintenance from the Petitioner/husband. In the said MC, Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2022 is filed by respondents 2 and 3 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.33,000/- per month to them. The learned Magistrate, by Docket Order dated 09.12.2022 partly allowed Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2022 and granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.3 per month to the respondent No.3 besides Rs.1000/- towards medical expenses of respondent No.2. vii) Impugning the said docket order, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/husband on the ground that the interim maintenance granted by the Learned Magistrate is at higher side. 4 3. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the Petitioner/husband, and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. Perused the material on record. Notice is issued to respondents 1 and 2, but none appeared on their behalf. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate is not justified. The order is a docket order and without assigning any reasons, granted higher amount of interim maintenance to the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate ought to have considered the financial condition of the Petitioner as the Petitioner got appointment on compassionate grounds and he holds burden to maintain his aged mother and blind brother. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.2 has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner in a peaceful atmosphere and she always picks up quarrel with the petitioner and his family members for petty issues. Respondent No.2 left the company of the Petitioner and lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and his family members. Learned counsel would finally submit that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made, the marriage and the relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The fact remains that the couple are separately living and that respondent No.2/wife filed maintenance case against the Petitioner/husband seeking monthly maintenance. In that MC, respondent No.2 also filed Crl.M.P.No.165 of 2022 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate granted the quantum of total interim maintenance of Rs.13,000/- p.m. 5 to the respondents 2 and 3 vide Docket Order which is impugned in this criminal revision case. No doubt, it is a docket order and no reasons are assigned for granting the interim maintenance to the respondents 2 and 3. 7. Be that as it may, Petitioner /husband is working in Electricity department and getting monthly salary. No doubt, the order impugned is passed in the MP No.88 of 2022 as an interim measure till disposal of the main MC. As can be seen from the order impugned, in the absence of adducing any evidence by the parties, it seems, the learned Magistrate by relying on the pleadings and oral submissions, granted interim maintenance. 8. In that view, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, is directed to dispose of the main MC No.41 of 2021 itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, without granting any adjournments in a casual manner on mere asking and without being influenced by the observations if any made in this Order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 19.02.2026 Mjl/* 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 316 of 2024 19.02.2026 Mjl/*