1 APHC010312562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 690/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, (ID.NO. 1384), S/O. MEERAVALI, AGED 40 YEARS, MUSLIM, OCC- SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE (HR RECRUITER). OFF CIGNITI TECHNOLOGIES, THE VIT PARK ORION BLOCK, 6 FLOOR, HYDERABAD. PRESENT RESIDING AT VOLETIVARIPALEM VILLAGE AND MANUAL S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATHI FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2. SHAIK RAJIYA BEE, W/O. SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, AGED 35 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/O. H. NO. 37-1-409973A, BHAGYA NAGAR 4TH LINE, 3RD CROSS ROAD, ONGOLE TOWN. 3. SHAIK GULNAZ, S/O. SHAIK MOHAMMAD RAFI, AGED 9 YEARS R/O. H. NO. 37-1-409973A, BHAGYA NAGAR 4TH LINE, 3RD CROSS ROAD, ONGOLE TOWN, BEING MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER/NEXT FRIEND I.E, 2NDRESPONDENT HEREIN. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 690/2025 JUDGMENT:- The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 438 & 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) challenging the Order, dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole in Crl.M.P.No.370 of 2024 in M.C.No.31 of 2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.2, who is the wife of the petitioner, has secured employment and is presently working as a Digital Assistant in the Grama Sachivalayam. 4. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that, since Respondent No. 2 (wife) is earning a salary, she does not seek any maintenance from the petitioner (husband). The learned counsel would further submit that a direction may be issued to the petitioner to pay maintenance and arrears to Respondent No. 3 (daughter) and arrears to the respondent No.2. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4 6. In light of the submissions made and upon due consideration, this Court directs the petitioner to pay maintenance and arrears, as ordered by the trial Court, to Respondent No. 3 (daughter). The petitioner is not required to pay any maintenance to Respondent No. 2 (wife) from this day onwards. However, the petitioner shall pay arrears of maintenance to Respondent No. 2 (wife) up to this day. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Judgment. ___________________________________ DR.VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 01.04.2026 S D P 5 262 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 690/2025 01.04.2026 W S D P