APHC010353792019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1138/2019 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI SUJANA KUMARI, W/O KOTHAPALLI MURALI MOHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O LAKEVIEW COLONY, OPP TO SP BUNGALOW, PODALAKUR ROAD, NELLORE TOWN ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOTHAPALLI MURALI MOHAN, S/O CHINNAIAH, HINDU , AGED 42 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O 2/111/38, SUNNAPUBATTI VEEDHI, NASRASINGARAOPETA, GUDUR TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONDUGALA RATNA JAI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THANJAVURU VENKATA SUMAN 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: COMMON 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 2 dated 28.11.2018 passed in M.C.No.30 of 2016 by the learned Family Judge, Nellore District. 2. I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed by the Petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case. 3. Heard Sri P.Ratna Jai Kiran, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Thanjavuru Venkata Suman, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is a delay of 206 days in preferring the revision. It is further submitted that the maintenance granted by the learned trial Judge is meagre and is not sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that the petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to file appropriate application before the trial Court for enhancement of the maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that the Petitioner herein is a divorcee. The learned trial Judge, after considering the material placed on record, has rightly granted the maintenance, which is in accordance with law. It is further submitted that no interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made and a bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned trial Judge has granted the 3 maintenance, after full fledged trial. There are no tenable grounds to interfere in the said order. In that view, this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the revision case. 7. In that view, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the trial Court for enhancement of the maintenance in case of change of circumstances. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:22.01.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2019 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1138/2019 Dt.22.01.2026 Dinesh