APHC010294142024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 596/2024 Between: 1. G HEMANTH KUMAR NAIK, S/O R GOVINDA NAIK, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.29-1379/1/19, PLOT NO. 19, SAMATHA NAGAR, NEREDMET, SECUNDERABAD,MEDCHAL, MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT, TELANGANA - 500056 ...PETITIONER AND 1. K SUJATHA BAI, W/O G. HEMANTH KUMAR NAIK, D/O. K BAVANNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.7-19, PEDAPALLI THANDA, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, AP - 515321. 2. G VENKATA PRANAV, RESPONDENTS NO / PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 / PETITIONER NO.1 3. CHINNA BABU, RESPONDENTS NO / PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1 / PETITIONER NO.1 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUNKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S KRISHNA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 596 OF 2024 ORDER:- The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 02.05.2024 passed in M.C.No.01 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law, as the trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.7,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 without taking into consideration the petitioner’s income at the time of filing of the petition. It is further submitted that the award of Rs.13,000/- per month is on the higher side, excessive and arbitrary, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the learned trial Judge after taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly awarded maintenance to the respondents and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. 5. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material on record, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a 3 Court of appeal. The scope of interference under revision is limited and is to be exercised only when there is a patent illegality, material 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. 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. 6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Order dated 02.05.2024 passed in M.C.No.01 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttaparthy. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2026. KNN 4 240 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 596/2024 Dt.11.03.2026 KNN