APHC010647962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1360/2025 Between: 1. P KESAVULU, S/O.P.VASANTHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.66-81, PULIKALLU VILLAGE AND POST PENUMMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P AT AMARAVATHI. 2. C LATHAMMA ALIAS LATHA, W/O P. KESAVULU,AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O H.NO.11/205, S.V. NAGAR TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 3. P DEEKSHITHA, D/O P. KESAVULU,AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, R/O H.NO.11/205, S.V. NAGAR,TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 4. P JASWITHA, D/O P. KESAVULU, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, R/O H.NO.11/205, S.V. NAGAR TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records connected to order dated 23.09.2025 made in F.C.O.P.No.161 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District, Tirupati, Chittoor District, examining the same and set aside the order dated 23.09.2025 made in F.C.O.P.No.161 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District, Tirupati, Chittoor District and to pas IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in F.C.O.P.No. 161 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court-Cum-V Additional District, Tirupati, Chittoor District dated 23.09.2025 pending disposal of the main criminal revision case and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge/Extension depositing 50 percentage of the arrears of maintenance, as directed by this Honble Court in its interim order dated 02.12.2025 passed in CRLRC No.1360 of 2025, and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K VISWANATHAM 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner/respondent against the Order dated 23.09.2025 in FCOP No.161 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. 2. The brief facts of the case are that i) the Petitioner herein and respondent No.2 herein are the legally wedded couple and their marriage was performed on 08.08.2012 at Madhu Vinayaka Kalyana Mandapam, Kanipakam, Chittoor District as per Hindu rites an customs and their marriage was consummated. After the marriage, the coupled lived at Devalampeta where the Petitioner herein was working. During their wedlock, they blessed with respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent No.2 born on 26.07.2013 and respondent No.4 born on 19.04.2017. ii) It is alleged that respondent No.2 was subjected to harassment both mentally and physically on the pretext that she gave female children and also for bringing additional dowry. The petitioner and his parents used to beat the respondent No.1 and petitioner completely neglected to main the respondents 2 to 4. Due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.2 gave a complaint in Mahila Police Station and in the mediation held in the year 2021, the couple rejoined. Again the same harassment started towards respondent No.2. It is stated that petitioner had an illicit intimacy with a lady who is distant relative to him and used to come to house late nights. She was completely neglected and petitioner herein dropped her at her parents’ house. 4 iii) Respondent No.2 again gave a complaint to Penumur Police, which is registered against the Petitioner herein, her in-laws and his concubine. iv) At that point of time, respondent No.2 completed her Ph.D in Sociology Department, SV University at Tirupati and used to get fellowship till completion of Ph.D. She spent all the amounts to the welfare of the family and her children. She is in search of job at Tirupati. iii) At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as a Government Teacher at Putharamaddi village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.70,000/- besides having agricultural properties, vacant sites at his village. iv) Considering the material aspects of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court partly allowed the FCOP directing the Petitioner/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondents 2 to 4 herein towards their food, clothing, shelter, medical and other expenses from the date of petition till further orders. Questioning the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the Petitioner/husband. 3. Heard Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.K.Priyanka lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State and Sri K.Viswanatham, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is erroneous, perverse and suffers from a material irregularity of law and procedure warranting interference in this criminal revision case. Learned counsel would further submit that the amount awarded towards maintenance of the respondents 5 2 to 4 is exorbitant especially, in view of the admitted salary of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the burden is entirely on respondent No.2 to prove the allegation of adultery attributed against the Petitioner herein. Further, respondent No.2/wife herself deserted the petitioner in June, 2017 without just and sufficient cause and she is not entitled for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in one voice stated that the order impugned is a well reasoned order and the learned Judge, Family Court after appreciating all the material on recorded came to the conclusion that the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and ordered maintenance as stated above. 6. During enquiry, in FCOP, respondent No.2/wife herself was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was examined on her behalf and Exs.A1 to A.7 were marked. Petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 besides examining R.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B7. A close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1/wife, it is to be noted that after the marriage, she joined the petitioner/husband at Devalampeta and that he used to leave the house for days together without any intimation to her and even he did not lift the phone and that she went to her parents’ house at Pulikallu village and stayed there for one year. She further deposed that the petitioner had an illegal intimacy with one Latha and he totally neglected P.W.1 and the children. As far as the working capacity of P.W.1 is concerned, she deposed that she is not doing any job and her father is no more. The evidence of P.w.2 was corroborated in all material aspects. 6 7. The petitioner herein was examined as R.w.1 and he deposed that he is suffering with kidney problem and other ailments and taking treatment for which he is spending huge amounts. 8. The sum and substance of the facts are that the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 are the legally wedded couple and respondents 3 and 4 are their children. Their marriage was performed in the year 2012, the daughters were born in the years 2013 and 2017 respectively. After marriage, the petitioner developed against the respondent No.2 that she gave birth to female children and she could not give birth to male child. In addition to that, as stated, petitioner and his family members harassed the respondent No.2 for additional dowry, they abused her in filthy language, beat her indiscriminately and necked her out from the house. Respondent No.2 gave complaint against the petitioner and his family members. The respondent No.2 filed DVC No.114 of 2022 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor against the Petitioner and his family members and she also filed FCOP No.162 of 2022 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 13.09.2024. The respondent No.1 gave a complaint dated 16.09.2019 to the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor against the Petitioner and his family members. Petitioner/husband filed Divorce Petition in HMOP No.59 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 9. On the other hand, the Petitioner/husband filed HMOP 59 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor against the Petitioner /wife for granting divorce and he also filed G.W.O.P.No.269 of 2022 on the file of the Court 7 of Principal District Judge, Chittoor for custody of the children/respondents 3 and 4 which are pending for adjudication before the respective Courts. 10. The legal obligation to maintain the wife and children lies on the petitioner being the husband though the respondent No.1/wife is working. Admittedly, he is a Government employee and drawing monthly salary. The petitioner neglected the family. Though several contentions have been put forth by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that the respondent was drawing salary as per Exs.A6 and A.7 which were exhibited before the trial Court. The respondent No.2 has deserted the Petitioner and left matrimonial home, cannot be a justifiable reason, for denial of maintenance. The learned Judge, Family Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by both sides, taking note of the exhibits filed before the Court and considering the prevailing cost of living, granted maintenance to the wife and children and directed the Petitioner/husband to pay the maintenance amount as stated supra. 11. The evidence of the parties is appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in a right perspective and the impugned order is a well reasoned order and it does not suffer from any infirmities and illegalities warranting interference of this Court. Viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere in the order impugned. The Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 03.03.2026 Mjl/* 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1360 of 2025 03.03.2026 Mjl/*