APHC010238332020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 348 OF 2020 Between: 1. Balaji Anthati, S/o Late Anthati papaiah, Aged 39 Years, Occ Business, R/o Railway Quarter No 1082/A, Vivekananda Nagar, Guntakal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court, Amaravati. 2. Jyotsna, W/o Balaji Anthati, D/o M.Narasimhulu, Aged 28 years, Occ House wife,R/o D.No.5/142-B, Sarswathi Nagar, M.R.Palle, Chittor District. ...Respondents 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 allow the above criminal revision case by setting aside order dt. 01-06.2020 passed in FCOP NO. 105 of 2018 on the file of the court of Judge, Family court-cum- V Additional District Judge, Tirupati and pass 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy of order dt. 01-06-2020 passed in FOCOP No 105 of 2020 on the file of the court of Judge, Family court - cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, for the present and pass IA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of order dt. 01-06-2020 passed in FCOP No 105 of 2020 on the file of the court of Judge, Family court - cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: DIYAVAR HUSSIAN SHAIK 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 8Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2020 passed in FCOP No.105 of 2018, on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that i) The Petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent No.2 herein is the Petitioner in FCOP No.105 of 2018. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are legally wedded couple and their marriage was performed on 12.03.2015 at Agastheeswara Kalyana Mandapam, Mukkoti, Chandragiri Mandal. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent No.2/wife joined the petitioner to lead the marital life. ii) It is averred that the petitioner/husband with the instigation of his parents harassed the respondent No.2 for additional dowry. Due to disputes between them, the respondent No.2/wife went to her parents9 house and started residing with them. iii) Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month from the Petitioner. iv) The Learned Judge, Family Court after recording evidence of the parties and having heard both sides, by Order dated 01.06.2020 party allowed 3 the Petition directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife towards monthly maintenance from the date of the Petitioner. v) Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Husband filed the present criminal revision Case seeking to set aside the order impugned. 3. Heard Sri P.Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner herein and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the order of the Appellate Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Further, the Trial Court erred in observing the fact that the respondent No.2 is not interested in continuing the marital relationship with the Petitioner and she herself left the company of petitioner for no valid reasons and for that reason itself, the respondent No.2 is not entitled for monthly maintenance. Further, due to the family disputes, Petitioner did not concentrate on the business and he sustained losses and that the trial Court did not consider the financial status of the Petitioner for paying the maintenance to the respondent No.2. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. The material on record would reveal that undisputedly, the parties are the legally wedded couple and they are issueless. They lived together under one roof for a period of one year and three months and due to disputes, the respondent No.2/wife left the company of the Petitioner/husband and staying 4 with her parents. The Petitioner filed OP No.52 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, Ananthapur District seeking divorce and the same is pending adjudication at the relevant point of time. 7. Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the Respondent No.2/Wife, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.6 documents were marked. On behalf of the Petitioner/husband, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 documents were marked. 8. It is the evidence of the P.W.1/wife and P.W.2 who is the witness to the marriage, deposed in same-lines stating that after the marriage the Petitioner/husband discontinued his job and demanded additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs from the parents of his wife for starting business at Guntakal. The wife expressed her helplessness for bringing additional dowry and on that pretext, the husband and his parents harassed her and the husband beat her and necked her out from the house. 9. Per contra, the petitioner/husband as R.W.1 deposed that he never neglected his wife and she herself voluntarily left his company. When he was hospitalised, he requested his wife to join him but she refused. He deposed that he is staying at his brother9s house and he is running internet centre in the name and style of 8Sri Sai Srinivasa Internet9. He stated that the lands are in the name of his mother and they are not partitioned yet. The R.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 insisted the R.W.1 to shift the family to Tirupati and reside near her parents9 house and she is not interested in the joint family. On this issue also disputes arose between the couple. The mediation also became futile. 5 10. The fact remains that the respondent No.2/wife is not an employee and she has no independent income to maintain. The Petitioner/husband also did not place any documentary evidence that the respondent No.2 is having source of income to maintain herself. Whereas, the Petitioner/husband is running internet centre and he is earning and it is the bounden duty of the Petitioner to maintain respondent No.2. 11. Coming to the aspect of the harassment meted out by the respondent No.2 in the hands of the Petitioner and his family members is concerned, the evidence adduced by both sides would reveal that the mediation became futile and admittedly, no criminal case is filed by the respondent No.2 against the Petitioner or his family members. Due to disputes between them, the respondent No.2 did not attend the petitioner when he was hospitalised. The Petitioner/husband filed divorce petition and the same is pending for adjudication. After considering the facts of the case and the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2/ wife is entitled for the monthly maintenance and granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month which is to be payable by the petitioner/husband. 12. 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 6 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. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 04.02.2026 7 HON9BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 348 of 2020 04.02.2026 Mjl /*