APHC010526962021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE IN INDUS IND BANK, NELLORE BUS STAND CENTER, ONGOLE CITY, ONGOLE MANDALAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, 2. YELLAPRAGADA SUNEETHA, W/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, D/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, RELATIVES PROTECTION, R/O D.NO. 6 ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. GADIREDDY HANEESH, S/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER YALLPRAGADA SUNEETHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, RELATIVES PROTECTION, 1-25, GODUGUPALEM, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021 GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE IN INDUS IND BANK, NELLORE BUS STAND CENTER, ONGOLE CITY, ONGOLE MANDALAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, YELLAPRAGADA SUNEETHA, W/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, D/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, RELATIVES PROTECTION, R/O D.NO. 6-1-25, GODUGUPALEM, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. GADIREDDY HANEESH, S/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER YALLPRAGADA SUNEETHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, RELATIVES PROTECTION, R/O D.NO.6 25, GODUGUPALEM, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3396] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE IN INDUS IND BANK, NELLORE BUS STAND CENTER, ONGOLE CITY, ONGOLE MANDALAM, ...PETITIONER ANDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT YELLAPRAGADA SUNEETHA, W/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, D/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HINDU, GODUGUPALEM, GADIREDDY HANEESH, S/O GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER YALLPRAGADA SUNEETHA, AGED R/O D.NO.6- 25, GODUGUPALEM, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the pleased toAggrieved by the 2 interim maintenance order passed in Crl.MP.No.349 of 2019 in M.C.NO.42 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 30.11.2021 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including execution in pursuant to the order passed in Crl.MP.No.349 of 2019 in M.C.NO.42 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 30.11.2021 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RADHAKRISHNA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.349 of 2019 in M.C. No. 42 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereby the learned Magistrate granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the minor son towards interim maintenance. 2. Heard Mrs. T.Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent–wife is well qualified, capable of earning, and had previously worked in a school, and therefore awarding Rs.7,000/- per month towards her maintenance is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that he is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher on contract basis drawing Rs.21,300/- per month and that contract employees receive salary only for ten months in a year. He asserts that he joined service only in July, 2021 and has not been paid salary, making it difficult to comply with the order directing payment of Rs.10,000/- per month in total. It is also contended that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and is therefore disentitled to maintenance. He further submits that the 2nd 4 respondent filed criminal cases under Section 498-A IPC and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act with mala fide intention, and that an earlier maintenance case was withdrawn pursuant to a compromise. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the documents filed by him and granted interim maintenance without due consideration of the factual and financial circumstances. 4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the order under revision is a well-considered and reasoned one, passed after due appreciation of the material available on record, and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. She would further submit that the trial Court has exercised its discretion while granting interim maintenance. 5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the impugned order is lawful and passed after proper consideration of the material on record. He would further submit that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife and respondent No.3 is the minor son of the petitioner, and both are dependent on him for their maintenance. The petitioner, being employed and earning a regular income, has sufficient means but has neglected to maintain them. He would further submit that the disputed allegations raised by the petitioner are matters for trial in the main maintenance case and that the interim maintenance awarded is reasonable and requires no interference. 5 6. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, the impugned order discloses that the trial Court, taking into consideration the pleadings of both parties, the prima facie material placed before it, and the financial capacity of the parties granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in toto to the wife and son, pending adjudication of the main case. 7. The reasons assigned for granting interim maintenance are well founded and justified and the same do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. The contentions raised by the revision petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated during the course of enquiry in the main maintenance case. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial Court during the enquiry in M.C. No.42 of 2019 which shall be considered by the learned trial Court independently in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 8. However, keeping in view of the fact that the matter pertains to maintenance, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole is directed to dispose of M.C. No.42 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6 09. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2026 KKV 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021 Dated 25.02.2026 KKV 8 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 25.02.2026 Dr.VJP,J The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. (vide separate order) ________ Dr.VJP,J KKV