APHC010123272019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 446/2019 Between: 1. NAIDU.PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O LATE PULLARAO,HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS,MANSON, R/O D.NO. 19-149, MASJID STREET, NEAR MADHUSUDHANARAO PETROL BUNK, AMMAVARITHOTA, NUZVID TOWN AND MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. NAIDU JAVAMMA, W/O PRABHAKARA RAO,HINDU AGED 40YEARS, DEPENDANT, R/O D.NO. 18-32, AMMAVARITHOTA, KAKANI BABURAO STREET, NUZVID TOWN AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP AT AMARAVATHI ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA The Court made the following: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.446 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed in Crl.A. No.180 of 2018 by the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, whereby the judgment dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, in D.V.C. No.2 of 2015 was confirmed. 2. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to Respondent No.1 towards food, clothing and medicines. The learned Trial Court also passed a protection order restraining the Petitioner from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the shared household by Respondent No.1. Further, the Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by Respondent No.1 and costs of Rs.3,000/- towards the proceedings. 3. Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds urged in the revision, submitted that the very marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 is in dispute. He contended that the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, without properly considering this vital aspect, erroneously passed the impugned judgments by partly allowing the claim of Respondent No.1/wife. He, therefore, prayed that the Criminal Revision Case be allowed. 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.446 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 4. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Ms. Yamini, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela for Respondent No.1, supported the judgment of the learned Appellate Court and submitted that the scope of interference in a criminal revision is limited and re- appreciation of the evidence is not permissible. They contended that the learned Appellate Court rightly confirmed the judgment of the learned Trial Court, that the revision is devoid of merit, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 5. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 6. Now the point for consideration is: "Whether the judgment in Crl.A.No. 180 of 2018 dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District at Nuzvid, is correct, legal, and proper with sno respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief? 7. As seen from the record, the learned Trial Court examined Respondent No.1/wife as P.W.1 and one supporting witness as P.W.2. The Petitioner/husband examined himself as R.W.1. Ex.P1 was marked on behalf of Respondent No.1/wife. No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Petitioner/husband. Upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 had lived together in a domestic relationship for a considerable period and, accordingly, granted the reliefs to which Respondent 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.446 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 No.1 was found entitled under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, concurred with the findings of the learned Trial Court and rightly confirmed the judgment. To establish her claim under the provisions of ‘the Act.,’ Respondent No. 1/wife adduced evidence to show that she and the Petitioner/husband had lived together for about 24 years. The said evidence has not been effectively rebutted by the Petitioner by producing any cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary. 8. In exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible. Unless the findings suffer from perversity, material irregularity, or result in a miscarriage of justice, interference is not warranted. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds no such infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 9. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Appellate Court warrants no interference. This Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.07.2026 KMS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.446 of 2019 Dated 21.07.2026 60 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 446/2019 Date:21.07.2026 KMS