APHC010233192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. GUDESEVA ANJALI @ BRAHMA ANJALI, W/O. B.SUBBA RAO, D/O. G.DURGA CHANDRA NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. 2. . MASTER HRUTHIK,, S/O. B.SUBBARAO, AGED OCC STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR REP BY NATURAL MOTHER I.E., PETITIONER) 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AMARAVATI. 2. B SUBBARAO, S/O. B.SRI RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SRI SAI WHITE HOUSE, DOOR NO. 8 RESIDENCY APARTMENT, NIRMALNAGAR, ONGOLE. Revision filed under circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to aside the Order dt. 16-4 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 450/2024 GUDESEVA ANJALI @ BRAHMA ANJALI, W/O. B.SUBBA RAO, D/O. G.DURGA CHANDRA NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. . MASTER HRUTHIK,, S/O. B.SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR REP BY NATURAL MOTHER I.E., PETITIONER) ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD B SUBBARAO, S/O. B.SRI RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SRI SAI WHITE HOUSE, DOOR NO. 8-313, ROAD, NO.3, NEAR SWATHI RESIDENCY APARTMENT, NIRMALNAGAR, ONGOLE. ...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 to pleased to Set 4-2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No. 205 of 2023 in IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA GUDESEVA ANJALI @ BRAHMA ANJALI, W/O. B.SUBBA RAO, D/O. G.DURGA CHANDRA NAGA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, ABOUT 9 YEARS, OCC STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. 401, R.S. TOWERS, YANAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA. (BEING MINOR REP BY ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, B SUBBARAO, S/O. B.SRI RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, R/O. SRI SAI WHITE 313, ROAD, NO.3, NEAR SWATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pleased to Set 2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No. 205 of 2023 in 2 F.C.O.P.No. 790 of 2022 on the file of Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, by granting maintenance to the each of the petitioners @ Rs.25,000/- per month, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. UMESH CHANDRA P V G The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 450/2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed assailing the order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.205 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No.790 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court–cum–IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Thota Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material available on record. 3. The revision petitioners are the wife and minor son of respondent No.2. They filed the Crl.M.P.205 of 2023 seeking interim maintenance. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 16.04.2024, dismissed the claim of the wife and granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the minor son, besides granting visitation rights to the respondent/husband. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner-wife has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. He would further submit that the trial Court erred in treating the properties gifted by her parents as her independent source 4 of income. The respondent/husband is earning about Rs.1,14,000/- per month and also possesses sufficient immovable properties, and therefore, both the petitioners are entitled to reasonable interim maintenance and also submitted that the amount awarded to the minor child is meagre and not commensurate with the status of the parties. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/husband submitted that the petitioner-wife is highly qualified, having completed M.Tech., and is capable of earning. He further contended that she possesses sufficient movable and immovable properties and hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance. 6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State would contend that the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is submitted that the trial Court has duly considered the material placed on record, including the affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties, and has exercised its discretion while passing the impugned order and therefore, the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 5 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2 is their minor son. It is also not in dispute that both the parties have been living separately since April, 2021. The record discloses that certain properties and deposits stand in the name of the petitioner-wife. However, it is her specific case that those properties were gifted by her parents and that she has no independent income. The trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-wife possesses sufficient means to maintain herself and therefore denied interim maintenance to her. At this stage, this Court is of the opinion that such a finding is based on prima facie appreciation of the material available on record and does not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction, as the issue requires full-fledged adjudication during trial. 8. Insofar as, the maintenance awarded to the minor child is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the respondent/husband is earning about Rs.1,14,000/- per month. The minor child is school-going and entirely dependent on the mother. The amount of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court appears to be on the lower side and not commensurate with the needs of the child and the financial capacity of the father. It is well settled that the father is legally bound to maintain his minor child and such maintenance should be reasonable, taking into 6 account the status of the parties, educational needs, and other expenses of the child. Having regard to the same, this Court is inclined to enhance the maintenance amount. 9. Accordingly, the respondent/husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month towards interim maintenance to the minor son. The said amount shall be payable from the date of this order and shall be paid on or before the 5th day of every succeeding month. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the F.C.O.P.Nos.790 of 2022 and 582 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this Order. Both parties are at liberty to raise their contentions during the course of enquiry before the learned trial Court. 10. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026 KKV 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 171 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 450 of 2024 Date 07.03.2026 KKV