APHC010628472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 1313/2025 Between: DEERGASI RAGHURAM REDDY, S/O. D. NANAJI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO. 72, INDIRA NAGAR COLONY, BALAGA RURAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2. JAHNAVI PANDIRI, W/O. D.RAGHURAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. G3, SAIKRUPA RESIDENCY, SRIKAKULAM P.S. LIMITS SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P VISESWAR RAO 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.06.2025 passed in F.C.M.C.No.4 of 2022 by the learned Family Judge- cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. 2 2. Sri Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the maintenance granted by the learned trial Judge is excessive and arbitrary. It is further submitted that Petitioner is an unemployed person and Respondent No.2 is a Dentist and that she is employed in a clinic and has potential to support herself financially. In support of their contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Crl.Rev.P.No.273 / 2023, dated 19th March, 2025. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, earned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is legal and no interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Considering the submissions made and the record would show that Respondent No.2 herein, who is the wife of the Petitioner herein filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also lodged a criminal case for offence under Section 498-A IPC apart from a case under Domestic Violence Act and the petitions filed for restitution of conjugal rights and Domestic Violence Act were allowed. The record further shows that, in the reply notice issued by the husband, he mentioned that they belong to a rich family which was admitted in his evidence as R.W.1. Be that as it may, the husband as R.W.1 in clear terms admitted that he used to work as a Software Engineer and used to get Rs.1,00,000/- per month and because of the ill-health of his father, the Petitioner resigned his job in the year 2021. Such being the case, awarding the maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife does not brook any interference of this Court. 3 5. The record further would show that Respondent No.2 / Wife is a Dentist and it is the case of the Petitioner / Husband that the wife is working in a Clinic and getting salary. No such evidence is placed before this Court. Even if any such evidence is there, the test would be whether that income is suffice to the wife to live on part with the status of the husband. In that view, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge has considered the material on record in a right perspective and ordered the Petitioner / Husband to pay maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further observed that R.W.1 expressed his readiness to take back the wife to the matrimonial fold. Such being the case, the Petitioner / Husband need not pay any maintenance, if they live together as a family. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:28.01.2026 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.1313 of 2025 Dt.28.01.2026 Dinesh