APHC010526262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1282/2025 Between: RALLPALLI VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, S/O. VENUGOPALA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO L, SRI DEVI ENCLAVE, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. SMT NITTALA VENKATA DURGA BHAVANI, W/O.VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO 3/29, ARNRUTHA ARCADE, OPP CHAITANYA COLLEGE, PM PALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. SMT RALLAPALLI SATYA, ,W/O. BHARGAV KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NOIL, SRI DEVI ENCLAVE, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM (3RD RESPONDENT IS ADDED AS A PROFORMA PARTY AND NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT AGAINST HER AS THE CLAIM AGAINST HER IS NOT PRESSED IN DVC 62 / 2019) 4. RALLAPALLI SURYADEVI, W/O. VENUGOPAIA RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO L, SRI DEVI ENCLAVE, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. RALLAPALLI VENUGOPALA RAO, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, (LATE), AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, HINDU, FLAT NO L, SRI DEVI ENCLAVE, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MSVS SUDHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) against the Order dated 15.04.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2022 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram confirming the order in Crl.M.P.No.375 of 2020 in D.V.C.No.62 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 2. Heard Ms.M.S.V.S.Sudha Rani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. This revision is filed challenging the order of granting interim maintenance to the wife @ Rs.5,000/- per month, which was confirmed by the learned Appellate Judge. Having heard the submissions on both sides and a fair look at the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Judge, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The learned trial Judge after hearing and on appreciation of the pleadings which were placed before the Court, had taken a decision directing the Petitioner herein to pay the interim maintenance as mentioned above, which is not on high side and the same was confirmed by the learned Appellate Judge. In that view, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.62 of 2019 as 3 expeditiously as possible, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties and without being influenced by the observations made by this Court in this revision. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.03.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1282 of 2025 Dt.06.03.2026 Dinesh