APHC010309942024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. PULIPATI SURESH BABU, S/O. SALOMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. DOPPALAPUDI, PONNUR, GUNTUR 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. PULIPATI SUVARNA KUMARI, W/O. SURESH BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. ANANDAPURAM (V), GUNTUR DISTRICT. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set a side the interim order passed in CRL MP 453/2019 in MC. 35/2019 on dt. 11.08.2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalli IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased condone the delay of 619 days in filing the CrI. R.C. Sr. No. 6499 Of 2024 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 642/2024 PULIPATI SURESH BABU, S/O. SALOMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. DOPPALAPUDI, PONNUR, GUNTUR ...PETITIONER AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT SUVARNA KUMARI, W/O. SURESH BABU, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O. ANANDAPURAM (V), GUNTUR 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 Case, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set a side the interim order passed in CRL MP 453/2019 in MC. 35/2019 on dt. 11.08.2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalli Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased condone the delay of 619 days in filing the CrI. R.C. Sr. No. 6499 Of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA PULIPATI SURESH BABU, S/O. SALOMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 ...PETITIONER STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT SUVARNA KUMARI, W/O. SURESH BABU, AGED 32 ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Case, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set a side the interim order passed in CRL MP 453/2019 in MC. 35/2019 on that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased condone the delay of 619 days in filing the CrI. R.C. Sr. No. 6499 Of 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to interim suspension of the order passed in Crl. MP 453/2019 in MC. 35/2019 on dt. 11.08.2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalli and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 642/2024 COMMON ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to set aside the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.453 of 2019 in M.C. No.35 of 2019 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed in part, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. 2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 619 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard Sri L. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, irregular, and contrary to the evidence on record. The Court below failed to consider the conduct of the respondent-wife, who allegedly picked up frequent quarrels, behaved cruelly, and insisted on living separately, thereby making the marital life of the petitioner difficult.With regard to delay, learned counsel submits that the petitioner approached him belatedly, and upon such instructions, the revision was filed. The delay of 619 days is neither willful nor wanton. If the delay is not condoned, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. 4 Hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the revision be allowed. 5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court. She would further submit that there is an inordinate delay of 619 days in filing the present revision and no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner to condone such delay. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays that the application for condonation of delay as well as the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the learned trial Judge, by order dated 11.08.2022, granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent- wife. It is evident from the pleadings of both parties that serious allegations are made against each other. The respondent-wife has lodged a complaint vide Crime No.78 of 2018 for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w 34 IPC. She has also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The truth or otherwise of these allegations can only be determined after a full-fledged trial. Prima facie, the respondent-wife has shown sufficient cause for living separately from the petitioner. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is employed in the Indian Army. Though he contends that he is not presently working and is suffering from ailments, no documentary evidence has been placed on 5 record to substantiate the same. Similarly, the contention that the respondent- wife is earning has not been supported by any material evidence. In such circumstances, being the husband, the petitioner is legally bound to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court appears to be reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court. Coming to the delay of 619 days in filing the revision, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner to condone such an inordinate delay. This Court finds no sufficient cause to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026 KKV 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 173 I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 642/2024 Dt.07.03.2026 KKV