APHC010383252017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3368] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1820/2017 Between: 1. Y.SAINATH VIDYARANYA, HYDERABAD.,, S/O.Y.SUBRAMANYA SARMA, RESIDING AT FAT NO.403 D.NO.2-2-22/26-28, PRASANTHI 9 NIVAS DD COLONY BAGHAMBERPETH, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. Y BHUVANESWARI TIRUPATI 2 OTRS REP PP, D/O.Y.SAINATH VIDYARANYA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, MINOR REP.BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.K.LEELA SANTHOSHI RESIDING AT FLAT NO.502, SAI MAHIMA NIVASAM ROYAL NAGAR, R.C.ROAD, TIRUPATI 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HYDERABAD. 3. K LEELA SANTOSHI, (R3 NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toBeing aggrieved by the orders in FCOP No.27/2016 dated.09.04.2017 by the Family Court-Cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, the petitioner BVLNC,J Crl.R.C.No.1820 of 2017 2 herein begs to prefer this Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case, before this Honble Court on the following among other ; Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SOMASI SRINIVAS BVLNC,J Crl.R.C.No.1820 of 2017 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the Judgment dated 09.04.2017 in FCOP.No.27 of 2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Today, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondent No.1. On 30.10.2025 and 19.01.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. 3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Perused the record. 4. The respondent No.1 represented by her mother filed FCOP.No.27 of 2016 before the Trial Court, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month contending that she is the daughter of the revision petitioner and he neglected her maintenance. The revision petitioner filed counter opposing the application before the Trial Court. He admitted the marital relationship with the mother of the respondent No.1/ daughter. He also admitted that respondent No.1/ daughter who is aged two years is in the custody of the mother and that the revision petitioner and mother are residing separately. No material is placed on record before the Trial Court to prove that revision petitioner/ father has providing support for the maintenance of the daughter. The contention of the revision petitioner before the Trial Court is that he is an un employee but the BVLNC,J Crl.R.C.No.1820 of 2017 4 Trial Court did not accept his contention and observed that as per the evidence on record, he was working in a company at Hyderabad and earning Rs.40,000/- per month and it was also observed that revision petitioner is having capacity to earn money for providing maintenance to the minor child. Accordingly, considering the evidence on record and other circumstances of the case awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1/ daughter who was aged two years. The order of the Trial Court would show that the revision petitioner is willing to pay the maintenance to the respondent No.1/ daughter but he is not willing to pay the maintenance to the wife. 5. Upon consideration of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 09.02.2026 Dvs BVLNC,J Crl.R.C.No.1820 of 2017 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI 247 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1820/2017 Date: 09.02.2026 Dvs