APHC010526472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1107/2025 Between: MANGARATHI VENKATA SURYA MANI KANTA, S/O NARASIMHA RAO, AGED 30 YEARS, BUSINESS, C/O LUCKY COMMUNICATIONS, DOOR NO.58-2-10, PANTAKALUVA ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT MANGARATHI LAKSHMI HASEENA, W/O MANGARATHI VENKATA SURYA MANI KANTA, AGED 27 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.41-25-25, GANGANAMMA TEMPLE STREET, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. MANGARATHI RISHITA, D/O MANGARATHI VENKATA - SURYA MANI KANTA, AGED 4 YEARS, R/O D.NO.41-25-25, GANGANAMMA TEMPLE STREET, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. RUPA TAPASWI, D/O MANGARATHI VENKATA SURYA - MANI KANTA, AGED 2 YEARS, R/O D.NO.41-25-25, GANGANAMMA TEMPLE STREET, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THARIGOPULA SURYA CHAITANYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTA KRISHNA DEEPTHI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS against the Order dated 07.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.250 of 2 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.194 of 2024 on the file of Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada. 2. Heard Sri Tharigopula Surya Chaitanya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Sri K.Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3. This revision is filed challenging the order of granting interim maintenance to the wife and daughters @ Rs.10,000/-, Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,000/- respectively. Having heard the submissions on both sides and a fair look at the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to interfere in the impugned order. The learned trial Judge after hearing the matter at length, appreciating the pleadings which were placed before the Court, has taken a decision directing the Petitioner herein to pay the interim maintenance as mentioned above, which is not on high side. 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 F.C.O.P.No.194 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Pending applications, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:18.02.2026 Dinesh 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2025 Dt.18.02.2026 Dinesh