APHC010433852019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1331/2019 Between: V RAJA BABU, S/O. LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, R/O. D.NO. 2-20-1, OLD TOWN, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI 2. VALLURI MARY JHANSI LEELA RAM ALIAS RAMA DEVI, W/O. VALLURI RAJA BABU, R/O. 16-A-5-71, TAGELLAMUDI, ELURU ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner / Respondent seeking to set aside the Order dated 31.10.2019 in M.C.No.12 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 2 2. Heard Sri T.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order granting ₹6,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is illegal, as no finding was recorded that the respondent is unable to maintain herself. The respondent is young, healthy, and well-educated and capable of self- maintenance. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a contract worker earning only ₹12,000/- per month and is already paying ₹5,000/- per month under D.V.C. No.122 of 2016. Learned counsel would further submit that, grant of additional maintenance is excessive and arbitrary. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is legal and no interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that, mere educational qualifications do not disentitle the Respondent from maintenance. The Respondent has demonstrated need for maintenance, and the Petitioner, being an able-bodied person, is bound to support his wife. Further, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are independent from those under the Domestic Violence Act. The learned Magistrate has rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The impugned order is legal and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The quantum awarded is reasonable and no interference is warranted. 3 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 31.10.2019 in M.C.No.12 of 2017 by the learned Family Judge- cum-VII Additional District Judge, Eluru. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.01.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1331 of 2019 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh