APHC010457102025 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 Nos: 960 & 1146 OF 2025 Criminal Revision Case No.960 of 2025 Between: MOHAMMAD HANIF LAL, S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD KHANNAN RAHIM, AGED 32 YEARS. OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. PLOT NOS. 812 AND 813, FLAT NO.201, KARTHIK AVENUE, MATRUSRI NAGAR, MIYAPUR HYDERABAD. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 2. MOHAMMAD KHATIJA, W/O. MOHAMMAD HANIF LAI, D/O. SHAIK JAMALUDDIN, AGED 27 YEARS. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO. 17-1-2, NEAR SACHIVALAVAM, JENDA CHETTU STREET, 49TH DIVISION, ELURU-534 005, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Criminal Revision Case No.1146 of 2025 Between: MRS MOHAMMAD KHATIJA, W/O MOHAMMAD HANIF LAI (D/O SHAIK JAMALUDDIN), MUSLIM, FEMALE, NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 17-1-2, NEAR SACHIVALAYAM, JENDDA CHETTU STREET, 49TH DIVISION, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT AMARAVATI 2. MOHAMMAD HANIF LAI, S/O LATE MOHAMMAD KHANNAN RAHIM MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. SOFTWARE ENGINEER, IN TCS LTD., R/O FLAT NO.201, KARTIK AVENUE, PLOT NO.812 AND 813 MATRUSRI NAGAR, MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B CHANDRA SHEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Cases under Sections 438 read with 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioners / Husband & Wife respectively seeking to set aside the Order dated 01.07.2025 passed in F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 2. Since both the revision cases are arising out of one and the same order, these matters are heard and disposed of together by way of common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.R.C.No.960 of 2025. 4. Heard Sri Petluri Nagaraju, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband and Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 / Wife. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance. 3 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The Respondent–Wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home within three months of marriage without justifiable cause, never alleged that she was driven out, and made no effort to resume cohabitation. In the absence of neglect or refusal, the statutory bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. / Section 144(4) BNSS squarely applies. It is further submitted that the assessment of the Petitioner’s income is arbitrary, based solely on the Respondent’s unsubstantiated claim of Rs.2,25,000/- per month, while the Petitioner’s actual income is about Rs.50,000/-. The Respondent, being a B.Sc. graduate with earning capacity, failed to prove inability to maintain herself. The award of Rs.15,000/- per month is, therefore, excessive and warrants interference in revision. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / Wife submits that the trial Court, awarded inadequate maintenance of only Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to support his claim of earning merely Rs.50,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a Software Engineer working with TCS and is earning about Rs.2,25,000/- per month. In the present cost-of-living scenario, Rs.15,000/- per month is insufficient to meet basic needs. Hence, the impugned order warrants interference and prays for enhancement of maintenance. 7. Having considered the submissions on both sides, it is evident that the dispute primarily relates to the assessment of income and the maintenance 4 amount. The Trial Court has carefully examined the evidence and has recorded that the Respondent is unable to maintain herself, and the Petitioner has sufficient means to pay maintenance and has rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to Respondent No.2. While both parties have raised contentions regarding income, there is no material on record to justify interference in the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. 8. In the result, both the Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed confirming the Order dated 01.07.2025 passed in F.C.O.P.No.125 of 2023 by the learned Family Judge-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:20.01.2026 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.Nos.960 & 1146 of 2025 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh