APHC010449752019 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: 11/2020 Between: GUTTAMEDA ASHOK KUMAR, S/O LATE G VEMAIAH OCC UNEMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 31 YRS, KADIRIPULAKUNTA VILLAGE 515551, NALLACHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHITTIBOINA SHANTI, W/O G ASHOK KUAMR D /O CHITTIBOINA BADULLA, NOW RESIDING WITH HER PARENTS AT D NO 42/105-8, NGO COLONY, (JAYA NAGAR COLONY) NEAR VNEKATESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. G RAMESH BABU 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 seeking to set aside the Order dated 14.10.2018 in M.C.No.30 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Family Judge- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2 2. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, 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 ₹10,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herein did not appear before the trial Court as he was unaware of the proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that though Respondent No.2 herein failed to file any document to show the income of the Petitioner, erroneously awarded the said maintenance which 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 on either side and on a perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge warranting interference in revision. The contention of the Petitioner that he was set ex parte and was unaware of the proceedings cannot be a ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the statute itself provides an effective remedy before the trial Court. 6. It is always open to the Petitioner to approach the learned trial Judge by filing an appropriate application seeking to set aside the ex parte order and to place necessary material with regard to his income, in accordance with law. 3 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy before the trial Court. No order as to costs. 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.11 of 2020 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh