Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26892 (AP)

CHITTOOR RAMACHANDRAN MOHAN SARATHY v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

CRLRC/44/2026 · 2026-01-19

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010660342025 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: 44/2026 Between: 1. CHITTOOR RAMACHANDRAN MOHAN SARATHY, S/O RAMACHANDRAN .INDIAN HINDU , AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC. SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, PRESENT NO EMPLOYEE, VANNEKULAKSHATHRIYAR BY CASTE , R/O D .NO. 5/395,MAIN ROAD , SANTHAGATE STREET, PAKALA VILLAGE , CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. CHITTOOR SUPREETH KUMAR, S/O CR.MOHAN SARATHY HINDU ,AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS 3. CHITTOOR NIHASVI, D/O CR.MOHAN SARATHY HINDU ,AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS ( R2AND R3 BEING MINORS REP. BY THEIR MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. ELPATHA RAJESWARI W/O CHITTOOR RAMACHANDRAN MOHAN SARATHY , HINDU ,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS , VANNEKAPU BY CASTE , GOVT. EMPLOYEE FCI, R/O 1ST STREET, CHANDRAMOULINAGAR, NEAR RITHWIK ENCLAVE , VEDAYAPALEM , NELLORE CITY .524004 SPSR NELLORE DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O VENKATA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 44 of 2026 Order: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),, has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in M.C.No.39 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. “Admittedly, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the trial Court, after taking into consideration the income, work experience, and earning capacity of the petitioner, granted maintenance to the children. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 20.01.2026 ARB 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 44/2026 Date: 20.01.2026 ARB