APHC010194792020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 323/2020 Between: 1. A GANGESWARAIAH, FATHER NAME. LATE A.YELLAPPA AGE. 43, C/O RUDRAMMA, R/O H.NO.46/90, BUDHAWARAPETA, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M JAYA LAKSHMI ALIAS M PADMAVATHI, W/O A.GANGESWARAIAH, H.NO.87/1356/4, SARASWATHI NAGAR, NEAR NANDYAL CHECKPOST, KURNOOL CITY. 2. 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 passed in MC.No.9 of 2016 dated 19-12-2019 by the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool by allowing this revision, in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 grant interim stay of all further proceedings including execution 2 of the order passed in MC.No.9 of 2016, dated 19-12-2019, on the file of the Family Court Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y JAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURESH BABU CHAPALA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3. LEGAL AID 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: As can be seen from the docket Proceedings dated 29.01.2026, none represented for the Petitioner and the matter is directed to be listed on 04.02.2026 under the caption “For Judgment”. Today, none represented for the Petitioner. This Court inclined to dispose of this Criminal Revision Case on merits by examining the order impugned. 2. This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short „Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2019 passed in MC No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool. 3. The brief facts of the case are that i) The Respondent No.1 herein is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner and their marriage was performed on 16.06.1995 at Bugga Rameswara Swamy Devasthanam, Kalva Bugga Village as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent No.1 gave a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Petitioner herein. They lived happily for eight years and thereafter, the petitioner/husband allegedly addicted to bad vices and used to consume liquor and harass the respondent No.1 physically and mentally. It is alleged that the petitioner had an illicit intimacy with one Sarojamma, who is the resident of Budhawarapeta, Kurnool. During wedlock, the couple had no children. Due to the harassment, respondent No.1 left the company of the Petitioner and is living 4 at her parents‟ house. Due to the mental agony, Respondent No.1/wife suffering from paralysis and she has been taking treatment. ii) At the relevant point of time, the Petitioner is an auto Driver-cum- Owner and used to earn Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. In addition, he is having lands at his native village and getting yearly income of Rs.2,00,000/-. Whereas, the Respondent No.1/ wife is suffering with paralysis and unable to work for her livelihood. iii) The respondent No.1/Wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. iv) During enquiry, on behalf of the respondent No.1/wife, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and her brother was examined as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the Petitioner/husband, he was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. Having heard both sides and taking into account the financial status of the Petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court, by Order dated 19.12.2019 allowed the MC and granted the quantum of maintenance at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month from the date of the Petition and directed the husband to pay the maintenance on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance granted by the Trial Court, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/husband. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Suresh, Legal Aid Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State. Perused the material on record. 5 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the learned Trial Judge convinced with the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent No.1 coupled with the documentary evidence and considering the financial status of the Petitioner/husband granted maintenance to the Petitioner. The order impugned does not suffer with any perversity and illegality warranting interference of this Court. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 while admitting the material facts, on similar lines, deposed in the cross-examination that Petitioner herein is one of the accused in murder case of one Avula Venkataramana. Because of illicit intimacy with one Sarojamma by the Petitioner/husband, wife is living separately. 8. The evidence of R.W.1 would reveal that in 2003, the couple decided to obtain divorce on mutual consent. The petitioner and respondent No.1 involved in a murder case. Due to that, the OP was dismissed. In December,2009, on the advice of elders, there was an agreement/joint affidavit that wherein it was agreed not to raise any demand for maintenance either in the past or present or future. The contention of the Petitioner herein is that giving go bye to the said agreement/Ex.B2, the respondent No.1 filed the present MC. 9. The evidence of R.W.2 who is the signatory of Ex.B2 would submit that Ex.B2 was drafted on 02.12.2009 and it does not contain the date in the entire body of the affidavit including beneath his signature. 6 10. It is the contention of the respondent No.1/ wife that her husband obtained her signatures on blank papers and subsequently, used the same by filling Ex.B2. 11. On this issue, the learned Trial Judge recited that on 29.12.2015, the husband issued a legal notice /Ex.A2, and nowhere in the said notice, mentioned about the joint affidavit. If really, the wife voluntarily signed on joint affidavit, the husband might have stated in his notice/Ex.A.2. 12. As can be seen from R.W.1 cross-examination, he admitted that respondent No.1 herein filed a complaint against him complaining that the petitioner herein obtained her signatures on empty documents. When the joint affidavit is obtained with volition on the part of the both parties, in the presence of the elders in the year 2009, there is no necessity for respondent No.1 to make high handed acts or illegal acts or coercion. 13. The fact remains that the marriage of the couple was performed in the year 1995 and they lived together happily for a period of eight years. The couple is issueless. Due to the mental and physical harassment meted out in the hands of the Petitioner/husband, respondent No.1/wife suffered mental agony resulting, she has been suffering from paralysis. She is unable to work for her livelihood due to her ailments. The clause that not to claim maintenance past, present or future which is scribed in Ex.B2 is not established by the Petitioner herein though he is the signatory to it. 14. So far as financial capacity of respondent No.1 to maintain herself is concerned, though the Petitioner stated that she is working as receptionist in 7 Noble Hospital and earning salary, no piece of documentary evidence is placed on record. It is the consistent evidence of the witnesses that respondent No.1/wife is suffering with paralytic stroke and due to that she could not attend any working including domestic work. 15. Considering the over-all evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Trial Judge has arrived at a conclusion that the respondent No.1/wife has no means to maintain herself. Accordingly, granted Rs.6000/- per month towards her maintenance which is payable by the Petitioner/husband. 16. The Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397-401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Courts to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of orders and proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice and to correct legal errors. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not sit in the armchair of the appellate Court and re-appreciate the entire evidence and while deciding revision case, this Court has to see whether any perversity is found in appreciating the evidence, whereas in this case, this Court does not find any perversity in the decision made by the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the revision, and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Court below. For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 04.02.2026 8 HON‟BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 323 of 2020 04.02.2026 Mjl /*