APHC010051382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 330/2026 Between: 1. TADUTURI TIRUPATHI RAO,, S/O. SANYASI RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.9/296/2, NEAR CMR SHOPPING MALL, NARASIMHANAGAR, GOPLAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P- 530027 ...PETITIONER AND 1. TADUTURI VARSHA, W/O.TADUTURI TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, STREET NO.8, SUBASHNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P-530027. 2. TADUTURI SOWMYA, D/O.T.TIRUPATHI RAO,AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 3. TADUTURI GEETHIKA, D/O.T. TIURUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS (THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ARE BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. THE 1ST RESPONDENT) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the Revision petition by setting aside the order on 02-09-2025 in I.A.No.1602/2024 in F.C.O.P. No.1062 OF 2023 on the file of the Court of the Court of the Family Court- cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Suspend the order dated 02-09-2025 in I.A.No.1602/2024 in F.C.O.P. No.1062 OF 2023 on the file of the Court of the .Court of the Judge Family Court-cum-V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KASHAPOGU SURESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 330 of 2026 ORDER: Heard Sri Kashapogu Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. On 06.02.2026, the following order was passed: “Heard Sri Kashapogu Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Judge, Family Court- cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A.No.1602 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2023. 3. F.C.O.P was filed by the petitioner/husband and in the said case, the I.A. was filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance and the pendente lite expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The claim was for grant of an amount of Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the 1st petitioner(wife) and Rs.10,000/- p.m. each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (the minor children). Towards the expenses, Rs.50,000/- was claimed. 4. The Judge, Family Court, has allowed the interim maintenance till disposal of the main petition for an amount of Rs.8,000/- p.m. each to the petitioners 1 to 3 therein. 5. The order states “Heard exparte” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was also heard on that date. But his submissions have not been considered nor recorded. 7. The ground of challenge, has been taken to that effect for ground Nos.2, 4 and 5 in particular. They are reproduced as under: “2. The Lower Court miserably failed to consider the submission of the revision petitioner that as a Jawan with CRPF, he has never harassed or insulted the respondent regarding her appearance or the birth of their daughters. 4. The Lower Court miserably failed to consider the submission of the revision petitioner that in June 2021, the respondent attended her brother’s wedding with their daughters and her, gold jewellery. She stayed at her parental home for more than 20 days without informing the petitioner or his parents, taking personal belongings from their home without consent. Despite efforts to reconcile through mutual acquaintances, she refused to return and live and live with the revision petitioner. Claims of an extramarital relationship are fabricated and untrue. 4 5. The lower Court miserably failed to consider the submission of the revision petitioner that the respondent has neglected the petitioner’s elderly parents’ care. She took Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner to start a beauty parlour in Yendada, Visakhapatnam, which generates more than Rs.30,000/- per month. She abandoned their marital home for over two years, as detailed in the main petition.” 8. If it is so, that the petitioner advanced the submissions and the submissions were not recorded, even while granting interim maintenance, the same cannot be sustained prima facie, this Court is of the above view as the order itself records in para No.2 “heard ex parte”. 9. Let a report be submitted by learned Trial Court. If the order passed on 02.09.2025 is exparte or the petitioner was also heard on that date, in view of the ground raised in the revision. 10. The report would be sent through proper channel and in sealed cover. 11. List on 20.02.2026”. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a report has been submitted by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. 4. As per the said report, in I.A.No.1602 of 2024, under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance by the wife for herself and the two minor children filed in F.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2023, in the said Court, the respondent/husband entered appearance and filed a counter contesting I.A.No.1602 of 2024. Thereafter, the parties were directed to file their respective statements of accounts and furnished particulars, and the matter was posted for fresh hearing on several occasions. Further, the husband failed to pay the school fees of the minor children and in the interest and welfare of the children, the Court directed the husband to pay the school fees, however, the said direction was not complied with, despite several 5 opportunities having been granted. A further memo was filed by the wife reporting non-compliance by the husband. 5. In view of continued non-compliance, the Court struck off the defence of the husband in I.A.No.1602 of 2024 and setting him ex parte. Thereafter, the matter was heard ex parte and order was passed I.A.No.1602 of 2024, which are impugned in the present C.R.P. 6. The original record has also been sent to this Court. On perusal of the record, it is found that on 17.06.2025, the petitioner was set ex parte and his defense in I.A.No.1602 of 2024 was struck off. Thereafter, on 02.09.2025 the matter was heard ex parte and the order was impugned in the C.R.P was passed. 7. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arguments were advanced, as also the grounds raised in the memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to that effect, and those were not considered in the impugned order are not substantiated by the record and the report. 8. This Court does not find any legality in the impugned order. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 11. The record received from the learned Court, be kept in a sealed cover and be sent to the Court concerned through the concerned District Judge to proceed further as per law expeditiously. 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Dated:07.05.2026 KNN 7 212 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 330 of 2026 Dated:07.05.2026 KNN