APHC010619012025 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 NO: 26/2026 Between: 1. TATIKONDA VENKATESH, S/O. DURGA NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-87, GANGIREDDUDULA COLONY, MORAMPUDI JUNCTION, BAPUJI NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY. 2. TATIKONDA DURGA NAIDU, (DIED) S/O. GANGARAJU (LATE), HINDU, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.7-87, GANGIREDDUDULA COLONY, MORAMPUDI JUNCTION, BAPUJI NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY. 3. TATIKONDA ANNAPURNA,, W/O. DURGA NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.7-87, GANGIREDDUDULA COLONY, MORAMPUDI JUNCTION, BAPUJI NAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI 2. TATIKONDA AKULA KOTA PADMA NAGALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATESH, D/O. NAGARAJU, HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS, RIO. ASHOK NAGAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (COMPLAINANT IN THE DVC AND R1 IN C.A.) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A RAVEENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioners seeking to set aside the Judgment dated 2 13.09.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru which was passed by confirming the Order dated 04.10.2019 in D.V.C.No.62 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru. 2. Heard Sri A.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. None appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioner No.2 herein died. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court as well as the Order of the trial Court are illegal and unsustainable, as the Domestic Violence Case is based only on interested testimonies without any independent or documentary evidence. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no proof of cruelty or domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act, and mere suspicion does not amount to sexual abuse. It is further submitted that the criminal case which was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 313 and 506 IPC against the Petitioners, ended in acquittal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal without proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the award of compensation is without any basis, and the impugned judgment and order suffer from non-application of mind, warranting interference of this Court. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 has been paying maintenance in M.C.No.32 of 2018 vide exparte order dated 13.12.2020 passed by the learned Family Judge, Eluru. 3 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned judgment and order are legal and based on proper appreciation of evidence, and do not warrant any interference. The testimony of the aggrieved woman, duly supported by other witnesses, is sufficient to establish domestic violence, and absence of independent witnesses is not fatal in matrimonial disputes. It is further submitted that acquittal in the criminal case does not absolve the Petitioners under the Domestic Violence Act. The compensation awarded is reasonable, and the impugned judgment and order are well- reasoned and in accordance with law, and therefore the revision petition deserves dismissal. 5. Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence placed before them. The conclusions arrived at are based on sound reasoning and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or irregularity. The findings recorded by the Courts below clearly establish the existence of domestic violence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The reliefs granted, including monetary relief and compensation, are found to be just, reasonable, and in accordance with law. 6. It is well settled that the scope of interference under revisional jurisdiction is limited, and unless the impugned orders are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law, this Court would not ordinarily interfere 4 with concurrent findings of fact. In the present case, no valid ground has been made out to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, Petitioner No.1 herein is at liberty to work out his remedies in maintenance case before the concerned Court in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 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.No.26 of 2026 Dt.20.01.2026 Dinesh