1 APHC010187342019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705/2019 Between: 1. B.SATISH KUMAR, OCC SERVICE, R/O H.NO. 133, Y.K.M. COLONY, PARVATHIPURAM VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. B SRI JYOTHI, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O H.NO. 86, VUDA COLONY, PHASE - IV, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705/2019 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the Order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, granting maintenance @Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 herein. 2. Heard Mr.N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Tarlada Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent No.1 against whom, a case in F.C.M.C.No.16 of 2017 has been filed by the respondent No.1 seeking maintenance. He would further submit that the learned Trial Judge without considering the financial constraints and statutory liabilities of the petitioner including his personal expenses, dependent family members and other unavoidable commitments, granted maintenance @Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife, though she is capable of maintaining herself. 4. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of appeal. The scope of interference under revision is limited and is to be exercised only when there is a patent illegality, material 3 irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge suffer from jurisdictional error or are manifestly erroneous, this Court cannot interfere with the order. In the present case, the petitioner/husband, having participated in the trial before the Trial Court, chose not to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings. On careful perusal of the impugned Order of the learned Trial Court, there are no material irregularities. There is no flagrant miscarriage of justice. No perverse findings. Hence, this criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the aforementioned premises, since there are no grounds to entertain revision against the impugned Order, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 28.01.2026 S D P 4 310 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 705/2019 Date 28.01.2026 S D P