APHC010353372021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5483/2021 Between: JAVARAPU DHANANJAYA, S/O CHKRDHARA RAO, AGED 38YEARS, OCC. PUROHITH, R/O KAMAYYAPALEM, VILLAGE, JEELUGUMILLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI. DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.JAYAVARAPAU USHA RANI, W/O DHANANJAYA, D/O KOTA RAMA RAO AGED 26 YEARS R/O NEELADRIPURAM, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.JAYAVARAPU VENKATA LAKSHMI ANNAPURANANIVEDITHA, D/O DHANANJAYA AGED 3 YEARS, R/O 84 C/O KOTA RAMA RAO NEELADRIPURAM, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.THE STATE OF AP, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: M P V N V SASTRI 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SARALA NEELAGIRI 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 3.LEGAL AID The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) challenging the order dated 13.06.2019 passed in Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition confirming the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem in M.C.No.3 of 2013 directing the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to Respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.2 (daughter) from the date of the petition, along with costs of Rs.100/-. 3. Sri M.P.V.N.V.Sastri, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submits that Respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted the Petitioner without any justifiable cause; that the Petitioner has no avocation or source of income; that Respondent No.1 has 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 sufficient means to maintain herself as well as Respondent No.2; and that in the criminal case alleged by Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘IPC’), the Petitioner was acquitted; and that even though a compromise was effected between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 did not adhere to the terms of the compromise. As the learned Trial Court has not passed any order based on proper appreciation of the evidence, it is urged that the order of the Revisional Court be set aside. 4. Per contra, Ms.Sarala Neelagiri, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Revisional Court correctly appreciated the factual circumstances of the case and properly upheld the judgment of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that there are no infirmities, no material irregularities, and no valid grounds to quash the order passed by the learned Revisional Court. 5. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 &2. As seen from the orders of the learned Trial Court and the Revision Court, there are no infirmities, let alone any material infirmities, in appreciating the evidence of both parties. The petitioner himself admitted that he is a priest in a temple. The acquittal of the case registered for the offence punishable under Section 498 of ‘the IPC’ is not a ground for rejecting the orders of the learned courts below. 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 6. The Respondent No.1, by examining herself as RW.1, deposed that she was unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, who was three years of age at the time. It is contended that the petitioner possesses Ac.4.00 cents of land at Ankampalem, Jeelugumilli Mandal, and Ac.10.00 cents of land at Buttaiaudem, earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. In addition, he owns property worth Rs.8,00,000/- and Ac.2.50 cents of land at Kamayyapalem Village. By that time, he earned Rs.50,000/- per month and also received income from conducting bajans and pravachanams. 7. The learned Trial Court did not grant the full amount as sought for towards maintenance to Respondent Nos.1 and 2; it only awarded Rs.4,000/- to Respondent No.1 and Rs.3,000/- to Respondent No.2. In the present times, these amounts are admittedly meagre to maintain unofficial respondents, even as per the below standards of living in the present-day society. 8. In this context, it is apposite to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor1 wherein at paragraph No.32, it is held as under: “32. The High Court did not commit an error in rejecting the application filed by appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The inherent powers of the High Court given under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice…” 12020 Supreme(SC) 180 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 9. A learned Single Judge of this Court in C.Ravi Kiran Yadav v. State of A.P.2 wherein at paragraph Nos.6 & 7, it is held as under: “6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. It is settled position that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to negate or subvert the statutory provision. It is no doubt true, that one can approach this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 against the order only under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of the rare cases. The provision of Section 482 is not a routine remedy against any order by the party. In the present case, the order of the learned Magistrate transpires, that while passing the order, the learned Magistrate exercised his judicial discretion, having taken into account the source of income of the petitioner/husband and the other materials brought on record, which were also considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate and he has judiciously exercised his discretion and granted interim maintenance, as such, this Court does not find any fault with such order. Hence, this petition in my considered view does not fall in the category of the rarest of the rare cases, requiring interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.” 10. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ are extraordinary in nature and must be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice, and not as a substitute for appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Hence, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is manifest illegality, glaring irregularity, or perversity in the orders of the 22024 Supreme(AP) 717 6 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 Trial Courts below, making the scope under Section 482 ‘of the Cr.P.C’., strictly limited. 11. In the present case, the Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is extraordinary and cannot be exercised as if it were an appellate or revisional forum. The power is reserved only for situations involving abuse of the process of law or glaring injustice, and not for re- appreciation of evidence or revisiting concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court and Revisional Court. Since both the Courts below had examined the evidence, considered the financial position of the Petitioner, and arrived at well- reasoned conclusions, this Court found no manifest illegality, irregularity or perversity in their orders. Therefore, the petition did not fall into the category of “rarest of the rare” cases that would justify interference under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 12. This Court further observed that the learned Magistrate had judiciously exercised discretion while granting maintenance to the wife and minor daughter, taking into account the petitioner’s occupation as a priest, his agricultural lands, income, and other material brought on record. The learned Revisional Court had also carefully re- examined these aspects and upheld the maintenance order. Since the maintenance awarded, Rs.4,000/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the child, was modest and supported by evidence, and given that the respondent-wife was unable to maintain herself and her minor 7 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 daughter, this Court found no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in the decisions of the learned Courts below. Consequently, as there was neither abuse of Court process nor any injustice caused, this Court concluded that no interference was warranted under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 13. The orders of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity. There are no merits in this Petition. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 28.01.2026 PRA 8 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.5483 of 2021 Dated 28.01.2026 181 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5483 of 2021 Date:28.01.2026 PRA