1 APHC010531352023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 935/2023 Between: 1. D.KHADAR MASTAN, S/O MADAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, RIO D.NO.58/383-5-18, TILAKNAGAR, AKKAYAPALLI, KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. SMT D DASTAGIRAMMA KHAIRUNNESA, W/O D. KHADAR MASTAN, R/O YELLATUR VILLAGE PENDLIMARRI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT-516216 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. A SYAM SUNDAR REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 935/2023 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the Order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Se;ssions Judge, Kadapa in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2019 in M.C.No.02 of 2008, by enhancing the monthly maintenance @Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 herein. 2. Heard Mr.B.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Syam Sundar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-state. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent No.2 against whom, a case in Cl.M.P.No.133 of 2019 in M.C.No.02 of 2008 has been filed by the respondent No.2 seeking enhance the monthly maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.25,000/-. He would further submit that the learned Trial Judge without considering the financial constraints and statutory liabilities of the petitioner including his personal expenses, dependent family members and other unavoidable commitments, enhancing the maintenance from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife, though she is capable of maintaining herself. 3 4. Considering the submissions made, on perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, does not sit as a Court of appeal. The scope of interference under revision is limited and is to be exercised only when there is a patent illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Unless the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge suffer from jurisdictional error or are manifestly erroneous, this Court cannot interfere with the order. In the present case, the petitioner/husband, having participated in the trial before the Trial Court, chose not to adduce any evidence in support of his pleadings. On careful perusal of the impugned Order of the learned Trial Court, there are no material irregularities. There is no flagrant miscarriage of justice. No perverse findings. Hence, this criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the aforementioned premises, since there are no grounds to entertain revision against the impugned Order, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 23.03.2026 S D P 4 261 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 935/2023 Date 23.03.2026 S D P