APHC010292702019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 981/2019 Between: 1 . PATTEM KUMARA SWAMY, S/O LATE SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TEACHER IN M P P SCHOOL, GUDDUGUDEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. 2 . PATTEM NOOKARATNAM, W/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3 . PATTEM UMESH, S/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, R/O RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4 . PATTEM MOXAGNA, D/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, R/O RAMPACHODAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...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 2 Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to allow the criminal Revision Case by setting aside the judgment dt.29/11/2017 passed DVC No.1/2017 in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 . A V V S BHUJANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 . P VIVEK 2 . PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’ ) by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Order dated 29.11.2017 passed in DVC No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is the wife and respondents 3 and 4 are children of the Petitioner herein. The marriage of Petitioner and respondent No.2 was performed on 06.09.1998 as per caste customs. Due to disputes between the parties, petitioner and respondent No.2 are living separately. Further, the respondent No.2 along with respondents 3 and 4 is living in her parents’ house. Respondent No.2 filed DVC No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram, under Section 12 read with 21 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2025 against the Petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate, by Order dated 29.11.2017 partly allowed the DVC and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month each to the Petitioners 1 to 3. Questioning the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the Petitioner/husband. Despite the order passed on 20.12.2025 for appearance of petitioner and respondent No.2, none represented for the Petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 As can be seen from the impugned order passed in DVC No.1 of 2017, Petitioner herein was working as a Teacher in M.P.P. School, Guddugudem Village, Gopalapatnam Mandal. The learned Magistrate granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each to the wife and two children of the Petitioner against the claim of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is the contention of the Petitioner before the Trial Court that the respondent No.2 herein on her behalf and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 filed maintenance case in MC No. 1 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addateegala, seeking maintenance. Learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 25.09.2014 granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondents 2 to 4 from the date of the Petition. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner /Husband preferred Crl.R.C.No.129 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Judge, Family Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned District Judge vide Order dated 13.04.2015 partly allowed the Crl.R.C. modifying the maintenance amount of Rs.3,000/- per month each to respondents 2 to 4 and granted maintenance of Rs.1000/- p.m. to respondent No.2 and Rs.2,500/- per month to respondents 3 to 4 herein (total maintenance amount Rs.6,000/- per month) payable by the Petitioner /husband to respondents 2 to 4 from the date of filing MC. It is further contended by the Petitioner herein that respondents 2 to 4 are not entitled to claim further maintenance in the DVC. The record would further show that petitioner/husband did not choose to place any evidence before the Trial Court to prove his contentions. The impugned order is a well reasoned order and 5 nothing to interfere in this revisional jurisdiction. This Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 19.01.2026 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 981 of 2019 19.01.2026 Mjl /*