APHC010282672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 389 & 531 OF 2022 Criminal Revision Case No.389 of 2022 Between: PATNANA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE APPANNA SETTI, AGED ABOUT 37 YRS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, RIO. PLOT NO.305,BHAVYAS TULASI VANAM APARTMENT, NEAR NAVODHAYA COLONY,KPHB, HYDERABAD- 500072. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PATNANA SUMASRI, W/O.SRINIYASA RAO, D/O.BARATAM VENKATA MALIKHARJUNA SURYANARAYANA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 31 YRS,OCC- PRIVATE JOB, R/O. PEDDA BARTAM STREET, NEAR SAI BALAJI DRIVING SCHOOL, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532001. 2. PATNANA ADHVIK, S/O.SRINIYASA RAO, C/O.BARATAM VENKATA MALIKHARJUNA SURYANARAYANA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 5 YRS, R/O. PEDDA BARTAM STREET, NEAR SAI BA.LAJI DRIVING SCHOOL, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532001. PETITIONER NO. 2 BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF RESPONDENT/PETITIONER NO.1 PATNANA SUMASRI) 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PHANI TEJA CHERUVU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Criminal Revision Case No.531 of 2022 Between: 1. PATNANA SUMASRI, W/O SRINIVASA RAO D/O BARATAM VENKATA MALLIKHARJUNA SURYANARAYANA GUPTA, AGED 31 YEARS R/O 2 PEDDA BARATAM STREET, NEAR SAI BALAJI DRIVING SCHOOL, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 2. PATNANA ADHVIK, S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS R/O PEDDA BARATAM, STREET, NEAR SAI BALAJI DRIVING SCHOOL, I SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. PATNANA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LATE APPANNASETTI AGED 37 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1-1-108, RAJA STREET, NEELAMPETA VILLAGE, PATTUPURAM POST, KOTABOMMALI MANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT NO. D 305, BHAVYAS TULASI VANAM, USHA MULLAPUDI HOSPITAL ROAD, NAVODAYA COLONY, KUKATPALLI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. PHANI TEJA CHERUVU The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Cases under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C have been filed by the Petitioners / husband & wife and son respectively seeking to set aside the Order dated 03.02.2022 passed in F.C.M.C.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Since both the revision cases are arising out of one and the same order, these matters are heard and disposed of together by way of common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.R.C.No.389 of 2022. 3 4. Heard Sri Phani Teja Cheruvu, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband and Sri Mohammad Nayab Rasool, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 / Wife & Son. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. There is wilful desertion on the part of Respondent No.2 / Wife without any sufficient cause. Learned counsel would further submit that the Respondent No.2 / Wife is highly educated and working woman. Learned counsel would further submit that the maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is excessive and arbitrary and warrants interference in revision. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 / Wife & Son submits that the trial Court, awarded inadequate maintenance of only Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is getting more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month towards salary, has Ac.13.00 cents of agricultural land in Gollapeta Village and also commercial lands. In the present cost-of-living scenario, the maintenance awarded to the wife and son is insufficient to meet basic needs. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference and prays for enhancement of maintenance. 7. The object of awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and to ensure that the wife and minor child are able to live with dignity. The mere plea of desertion, without cogent material to show that the wife left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause, cannot be 4 accepted. Further, the mere fact that the wife is educated does not ipso facto disentitle her from claiming maintenance, unless it is established that she is gainfully employed and earning sufficient income to maintain herself. 8. In the present case, the learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the material on record, has awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor son. The said quantum cannot be said to be either excessive, as contended by the husband, or inadequate, as contended by the wife and son, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. 9. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed confirming the Order dated 03.02.2022 passed in F.C.M.C.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-III Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. However, liberty is given to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 / Wife and minor Son to file an appropriate application before the learned trial Court seeking enhancement of maintenance, if there is any subsequent change in circumstances. On such filing, the learned trial Court may take appropriate decision over the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present revisions. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.Nos. 389 & 531 OF 2022 Dt.06.02.2026 Dinesh