APHC010385142019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1207/2019 Between: G UMAPATHI, S/O SINGARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS CONSTABLE R/O H.NO. 51-1026-F4-2, ILLURU NAGAR KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER AND D MADANA KUMARI SHARADA, W/O G.UMAPATHI AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE TEACHER G YAMINI PRIYANKA, D/O G.UMPATHI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, G YASWANTH SINHA, S/O G.UMAPATHI, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN D.MADANA KUMARI ALIAS SHARADA ALL ARE R/O H.NO. 51-1057-AB, LIC COLONY, SEETHARAMA NAGAR, KURNOOL CITY. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CIELICKSTBACI--CITIZOSZE, ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case, against the order dt.5-7-2019 passed in F.C.M.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the IV Addl. District Judge-cum- Family Court, Kurnool, Counsel for the Petitioner: J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) preferred by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the Order dated 05.07.2019 passed in FCMC No.21 of 2018 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kurnool. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the Petitioner herein and respondent No.1 was performed on 16.03.1995 at Kurnool. After 10yes of their marriage, they blessed with respondents 2 and 3 herein. The allegation of the respondent No.1 is that petitioner addicted to vices, used to take alcohol and developed illegal intimacy with another woman. Petitioner herein used to stay with her concubine and neglected the respondents herein. Respondent No.1 gave a complaint against the petitioner herein and the IV Town Police Station, Kurnool called the petitioner herein and advised him to look after the respondents herein but he paid defeat ear to the said words. On the other hand, petitioner herein is drawing monthly salary of Rs.55,781/- per month besides immovable properties at Kurnool. Having no means to maintain themselves, respondents herein filed a maintenance case in FCMC No.21 of 2018 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3. The Learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Kurnool, by order dated 05.07.2019 granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.3 and partly allowed the FCMC with costs. Being aggrieved thereby, petitioner 3 (husband) filed the present criminal revision case against the order dated 05.07.2019 passed in FCMC No.21 of 2018 on the ground that the monthly maintenance granted to the respondents 2 and 3 is highly exorbitant. Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri B.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4/State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the trial Court without properly assessing the income of the Petitioner and without appreciating the evidence on record, granted maintenance to respondents 1 and 3 herein. Learned counsel would further submit that based on the criminal cases foisted by respondent No.1, he was kept under suspension and he is receiving subsistence allowance of Rs.26,000/- and out of the said amount, he has to look after himself and his mother and he has to pay maintenance to the respondents 1 and 3. Further, respondent No.2 daughter is residing with the petitioner and she is pursuing her Engineering Course. Petitioner, who is the father of respondent No.2, is looking after her educational expenses and other day to day maintenance. Learned counsel would submit that in the partition with his two brothers, Petitioner got a small extent of land, wherein, he constructed three small portions and most of the times, the portions are kept vacant. Learned counsel would finally submit that the order under revision is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that petitioner herein neglected the respondents 1 to 3 and used to live with his concubine. Learned counsel would further submit that petitioner beat the respondent No.1 with iron rod and the Doctor noted contusions over the body of the respondent No.1 and due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.1 is living separately. Learned counsel would further submit that mother of the petitioner gifted one house to him and he is getting income on the rents. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner is working in Police Department and is getting good salary besides the rental income on the houses owned by him. Learned counsel would finally submit that the order of the trial Court in granting monthly maintenance to respondents 1 and 3 is just and reasonable and there are no vitiating grounds to entertain this criminal revision case and the same is liable to be dismissed. As can be seen from the common order impugned, it is not in dispute that petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 are husband, wife and the children. Respondent No.1 is separately for the reason that petitioner is habituated to vices and living with a women having illegal intimacy and petitioner is also opened joint account with another woman namely, Swathi. Petitioner is working in Police Department. Due to the criminal case lodged by the respondent No.1, he was kept under suspension and he was getting subsistence allowance. Respondent No.2/daughter is residing along with the petitioner and studying Engineering in computer sciences in Pullareddy College. Unless and until, he gets good income, petitioner cannot pay the instalments for the housing loan and to 5 maintain himself. Whereas, respondents 1 and 3 cannot maintain themselves and petitioner being the head of the family is supposed to maintain them. So far as the financial capacity of the Petitioner is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner is working in Police Department and getting subsistence allowance apart from the rental income. Now a days, the cost of living is more and lot of amounts are to be spent for their daily maintenance and for the education of respondent No.3. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity committed by the Trial Court in granting Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.8000/- to respondent No.3 for their maintenance. For the foregoing, this criminal revision case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, Petitioner is at liberty to recourse his remedy before the Trial Court in case of any change of circumstances. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 27.01.2026 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 1207 of 2019 27.01.2026 Mjl /*