APHC010652882022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1114/2022 Between: 1. R.P.NARENDRA, S/O R.P. PRAKASH RAO CHRISTIAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, UN-EMPLOYED, R/O H.NO.17/192-5, S.R. NAGAR, PATHIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT A ANITHA PAVITHRA, W/O R.P. NARENDRA, D/O A. ANJI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O H. NO. 2/113, SHANTHI ESTATE COLONY, ASPARI ROAD, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT 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 allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned Order dt.14.09.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3649/2022 in M.C. No.25/2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, Kurnool District. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 Interim Suspension of the Impugned Order dt.14.09.2022 passed in Crl. M.P.No.3649/2022 in M.C. No.25/2021 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial 2 Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, I will be put to much hardship and irreparable loss. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1114/2022 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, in Crl.M.P.No.3649 of 2022 in MC.No.25 of 2021, by granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent herein. 2. Heard Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent herein. The respondent filed M.C. No. 25 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent filed Crl.M.P. No. 3649 of 2022 seeking grant of interim maintenance pending disposal of the main petition. The learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the material on record, granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, vide order dated 14.09.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per 4 month is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and mechanically granted interim maintenance without considering the financial capacity of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the said amount and that the respondent is capable of maintaining herself. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the husband, is legally bound to maintain the respondent. The learned Magistrate, after considering the material available on record, rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is further contended that the respondent has no independent source of income to maintain herself and therefore the order passed by the learned Magistrate is valid and sustainable in law. 6. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, it is a well- reasoned one. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Admittedly, the wife is residing separately away from the husband. Unless a full-fledged enquiry is conducted, the Court cannot decide as to who is at fault. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Judge awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- 5 per month to the wife. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference. 7. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, as the order relates only to interim maintenance, both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of the enquiry. In turn, the learned Trial Judge may examine the truth or otherwise of such contentions and appreciate the evidence placed before the Court. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main M.C. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2026. UPS 6 279 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1114/2022 Dt.25.02.2026 UPS