APHC010303042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 672/2025 Between: . KAJI ANSAR AHAMED, D.NO. 11-1-3063RD CROSS, ARAVINDA NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND . KAJI MEHAJABEEN, W/O. KAJI ANSAR AHAMED, D/O. LATE SYED YOUSUF SAB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MUSLIM, HOUSE WIFE, C/O. SYED ABDAS, R/O. D.NO. 13-2-707, RAMACHANDRA NAGAR, ANANTAPURAMU, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. . THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI. ...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 Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 28.04.2025 made in CrI.M.P. No.209 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.238 of 2024 passed by the Judge, Family Court-CUM-VII Addl. District Court, Anantapuramu, Anantapuramu district and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: . E ANJANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): . KALEPU YASHWANTH . PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short „BNSS‟) preferred by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2024 in FCOP No.238 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Anantapuramu. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent NO.1 are the legally wedded husband and wife respectively and their marriage was performed on 26.06.2003 at Muslim Minority Function Hall, Dharmavaram as per the Muslim rites and customs. The marriage is an arranged marriage. For some time, the couple lived happily and thereafter, at the instigation of the younger brother, mother and sister of the petitioner herein, picked up quarrel for petty things. All the family members used to reside under one roof. At the time of marriage, petitioner is working in electricity department and getting salary. He used to give the entire salary to his younger brother. As there are no children, petitioner and respondent No.1 adopted the son of the younger brother of the petitioner herein under a registered adoption deed dated 08.10.2020. The adopted son‟s name is Khaji Azhar Ahmedand. On 18.12.2021 the respondent No.1 left the company of the Petitioner and deserted him voluntarily and living in the house of her brother(Syed Abbas) at Anantapur. Elders tried for reunion of the couple and it became futile. Petitioner herein sent a notice on 23.03.2023 to the respondent No.1 for restitution of conjugal rights. Since there is no response from the 3 respondent No.1, Petitioner herein filed FCOP No.74 of 2023 for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent No.1 filed FCOP No.238 of 2024 before the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Court, Anantapuramu. In the said FCOP, respondent No.1 filed Crl.M.P.No.209 of 2024 under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to her pending disposal of the main FCOP. The learned Judge, Family Court, after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, by order dated 29.04.2025 allowed the petition in part and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of main petition till disposal of the main petition amount on or before the 10th of every succeeding month by crediting the amount into bank account of the Petitioner or by way of cash. Further, the respondent shall clear the arrears of maintenance amount within three months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision case. Heard Sri E.Anjana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is suffers from illegalities and infirmities warranting interference of this Court. Learned counsel would further submit that, with the consent of the respondent No.1, the petitioner and respondent No.1 adopted the son of the 4 petitioner‟s brother under a registered adoption deed dated 08.10.2020, but respondent No.1 did not show any interests on the adopted son. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1 always used to insist petitioner to transfer all the properties on her name with an intention to give away all the properties to her brother‟s family. Further, respondent No.1 voluntarily left the company of the petitioner without there being any reason. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1 is aged about 55 years and dependant woman. At this age, she cannot work for her livelihood. Whereas, the petitioner is a retired government employee and getting pension and he is able to maintain respondent No.1(wife). Learned counsel would submit that the learned Judge, Family Court appreciated the facts of the case in a right perspective as well as the financial capacity of the Petitioner and granted interim maintenance to the respondent No.1 and the impugned order warrants any interference. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that while reiterating the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that the quantum granted by the Trial Court is just and reasonable and warrants no interference. Considering the submissions made and as can be seen from the material on record would show that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are legally wedded couple and their marriage was performed in the year 2003. They are issueless. The couple are living separately. Respondent No.1/wife is living in her 5 brother‟s house. Admittedly, respondent No.1 retired from service and is getting monthly pension. The Provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing with cases under this provision, drift in the approach from “adversarial” litigation to social context adjudication. It was not the intention of the legislature that once an order is passed in either of the maintenance proceedings, the order would debar re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance in any other proceeding. The sequences of the case facts are that the marriage of the couple was performed in the year 2003, the couple adopted the petitioner‟s brother‟s son on 08.10.2020 under a registered adoption deed, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial house on 18.12.2021, and Petitioner/husband filed divorce petition in FCOP No.74 of 2023 for dissolution of marriage. FCOP No.238 of 2024 seeking maintenance was filed by the respondent No.1/wife in the year 2024. It seems, the couple lived together for a long considerable period and they had a considerably long married life. Thereafter disputes were started between the couple. As evident from the record, Respondent No.1/wife is aged about 55 years and she is suffering with age old health issues. In the circumstances of the case, it can safely be inferred that the Family Court is fully justified in holding that the wife deserves to be granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Act. Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that order under revision is not sustainable in the eye of law is ruled out. The order of the trial Court in granting 6 monthly maintenance to respondent No.1 is just and reasonable and there are no vitiating grounds to entertain this criminal revision case and the quantum cannot be said to be either excessive, as contended by the husband warranting interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. However, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of FCOP No.238 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible without any further delay without granting adjournments in a casual way on mere asking. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 27.01.2026 7 HON‟BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 672 of 2025 27.01.2026 Mjl /*