APHC010435212019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1336/2019 Between: 1 . KOTA KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. GANGADHARA RAO, BRANCH MANAGER, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, INDUS IND BANK, KOTHAVALASA BRANCH, KOTHAVALASA ...PETITIONER AND 1 . KOTA MUKUNDA PRIYA, W/O. KIRAN KUMAR, HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. FORTUNE TOWERS, A- BLOCK, FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, WALKERS ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN D.NO.73-8-12/4, NARAYANAPURAM, VENKATARAMAYYANAGAR, RAJ AMAHENDRAVARAM 2 . KOTA HANSIKA, D/O. KIRAN KUMAR, AGED 7 YEARS, R/O. FORTUNE TOWERS, A-BLOCK, FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, WALKERS ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN D.NO.73-8-12/4, NARAYANAPURAM, VENKATARAMAYYANAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 3 . KOTA HARSHITH, S/O. KIRAN KUMAR, AGED 4 YEARS, R/O. FORTUNE TOWERS, A-BLOCK, FLAT NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, WALKERS ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN D.NO.73-8-12/4, NARAYANAPURAM, VENKATARAMAYYANAGAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 4 . THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 18.11.2019 passed in M.C.No.31/2016 on the file of the Family Court cum IX Additional District and Sessions Court, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram, and be pleased to pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 SUDHESHNA YAKKALA LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 ARRABOLU SAI NAVEEN 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) LEGAL AID 3 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 18.11.2019 passed in MC No.31 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum- IX Additional District and Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the Petitioner herein and respondent No.1 was performed on 01.11.2006 at Thantikonda, Gokavaram Mandal, as per Hindu rites and caste customs and their marriage is a love marriage. During their wedlock, they blessed with a daughter and son, who are respondents 2 and 3 herein. The couple lived happily for some time, and thereafter, allegedly, petitioner subjected the respondent No.1 with cruelty and demanded dowry. On the intervention of elders, petitioner and respondent No.1 again lead marital life for some time. Again Petitioner herein started harassing the respondent No.1 and he necked her out from the marital home. At the relevant point of time, Petitioner is working as a Branch Manager in Indus Ind Bank at Kothavalasa, Visakhapatanm District and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. The respondent No.1 herein filed a maintenance case in MC No.31 of 2016 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.13,000/- per month each to the respondents 1 to 3 towards their maintenance. The Learned Judge, Family Court after hearing both sides and on considering the material on record, by order dated 18.11.2019 allowed MC No.31 of 2016 in part 4 and awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1(wife) and Rs.5000/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 (children) from the date of the petition and petitioner is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Being aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner(husband) filed the present criminal revision case, seeking to set aside the impugned order. Heard Sri Y.Sudeeshna, Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Naveen, learned Legal Aid Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.4/State. Perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that respondent No.1 voluntarily deserted the respondent and she herself left the matrimonial home along with children and Petitioner is ready and willing to lead conjugal life with respondent No.1. Learned counsel would submit that respondent No.1 intentionally foisted the false case against the Petitioner and that Petitioner never harassed the respondent No.1 and on the other hand, respondent No.1 foisted false cases against the Petitioner and one case is ended in acquittal and one is pending for adjudication. Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.1(wife) is running a beauty parlour and also doing ready mix batter business and is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and that the respondent No.1 is not entitled for any maintenance amount. Learned counsel would submit that the total monthly maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- which is granted by the Trial Court to the respondents is in higher side and burdens the Petitioner as 5 he has to maintain himself and for the above grounds, learned counsel prays to dismiss the order impugned in this criminal revision case. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would submit that after considering the evidence of the witnesses and after considering the material on record, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order which is a well reasoned order and it needs no interference in this criminal revision case. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the Petitioner and respondent No.1 is a love marriage and the respondents 2 and 3 are their children. Due to disputes between the couple, they are living separately. The children are minors by the date of filing of the maintenance case. The Petitioner is a Bank Manager in Indus Ind Bank and earning a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. A perusal of the order impugned would show that respondent No.1(wife) was examined as P.W.1 before the Trial Court. In her evidence clearly stated that herself and petitioner lived happily for some time and thereafter, petitioner used to come to the home in late nights, used to beat respondent No.1 by demanding additional dowry. According to her, Petitioner used to abscond for days together and subjected her to cruelty. Further, it is deposed that Petitioner herein necked the respondent No.1 on 04.09.2015, whereas, it is the contention of the Petitioner(husband) that respondent No.1(wife) herself deserved the petitioner and that she is living separately. But, Petitioner could not able to prove the said contention by placing relevant material on record. The elders intervened between the couple and tried to pacify the disputes between them, but in vain. 6 The Petitioner (husband) was examined as R.W.1 and respondent No.1 is running a beauty parlour and also doing business and getting monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and she is an earning member and there is no need to pay maintenance to her. He deposed that the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3(children) is usurious, excess and exorbitant and petitioner is not in a position to pay the said amount. Learned Trial Judge rightly observed that merely the mother is an earning member, it does not mean that children’s interest will be best served. So far as the financial capacity of the Petitioner is concerned, undisputedly, petitioner is working in a private bank and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. Merely because, there are disputes between the couple and living separately and that the respondent No.1 is an earning member, the rights of the minor children will not be defeated and it is not a ground for not paying monthly maintenance to the children. Now a days, the cost of living is more and lot of amounts are to be spent for their daily maintenance and for their education. The learned Trial Judge rightly observed that the petitioner is a bank manager, respondents 1 to 3 being wife and children are expected to maintain the same status equal to the Petitioner(husband) Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material on record, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge is a well reasoned order and needs no interference in this criminal revision case and the impugned order, the 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(wife), and 7 Rs.5,000/- per month each to respondents 2 and 3 (children) herein 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. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 21.01.2026 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 1336 of 2019 21.01.2026 Mjl /*