Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/509/2026 of Y Madhu Krishna Vs C Mounika Alias Avanthika on 5 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. Y MADHU KRISHNA, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 30 YEARS,R/O. H.NO.87/1288-6-13, SIDE BY HOUSE, NAZAR
APHC010249562026
IN THE H
(
WEDNES
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. Y MADHU KRISHNA,
H.NO.87/1288-6-13,
COLONY,JOHRAPUR
1. C MOUNIKA ALIAS A
YEARS, RESIDENTS
KALLUR MANDAL, KU
2. Y MEGHA CHANDRIK
RESPONDENT NO.1
1,SOMISETTY NAGA
3. Y KAUSHIK RAJU,
RESPONDENT NO.1
1,SOMISETTY NAGA
4. THE STATE OF AN
PROSECUTOR, HON
AMARAVATI, ANDHR
Revision filed under
circumstances stated in the
Case, the High Court m
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 509/2026
S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 30 YE
SIDE
BY
HOUSE,
RAM ROAD, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNO
...PE
AND
AVANTHIKA, W/O. Y.MADHU KRISHNA,
S OF H.NO.87/1284-A-1,SOMISETTY
URNOOL.
KA, D/O. Y.MADHU KRISHNA, AGED
, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF H.NO.8
R, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL.
S/O. Y.MADHU KRISHNA, AGED 4
, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF H.NO.8
R, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL.
DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS THE
N'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P
RA PRADESH.
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying t
e affidavit filed in support of the Crimin may be pleased to set-aside the o
RATAPA
EARS,R/O.
NAZAR
OOL.
TITIONER
, AGED 29
Y NAGAR,
5 YEARS,
87/1284-A-
4 YEARS,
87/1284-A-
E PUBLIC
PRADESH,
NDENT(S):
that in the
al Revision
rder dated
03.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.24/2024 on the file of the learned Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge Court at Kurnool, 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 dispense with filing of the certified copy as to the order dated 03.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.24/2024 on the file of the learned Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge Court at Kurnool, IA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the order dated 03.03.2026 in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025
in F.C.M.C.No.24/2024 on the file of the learned Family Court -cum- IV
Additional District Judge Court at Kurnool Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.G MANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2.
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 509 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.24 of 2024 by the learned Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge’s Court, at Kurnool.
2. Heard Sri G.Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State is in attendance.
3. The petitioner herein and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed F.C.M.C.No.24 of 2024 on the file of the learned Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge’s Court, at Kurnool, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. During the pendency of the said petition, they filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025, seeking interim maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge, after due consideration, granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month each to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the date of the filing of the petition. Aggrieved by the said interim maintenance, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the interim maintenance granted by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side. The learned Judge failed to consider the substantial recurring expenses and the existing financial liabilities borne by the petitioner. It is also contended that the Trial Court failed to note that respondent No. 1, the wife of the petitioner, has sufficient independent income and is not unable to maintain herself.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders, as the impugned order pertains only to interim maintenance and the main case is still pending.
6. As can be seen from the record, the present revision has been preferred against the order granting interim maintenance. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that it is not in dispute that the wife and children are residing separately from the petitioner, nor is there any dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 herein. The contentions raised in the present revision are disputed questions of fact, and this is not the appropriate stage to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the claims made by the parties. The learned Trial Judge, after taking into consideration the material placed before him, passed the impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds warranting interference with the said order.
7. Considering the submissions made, since this revision is preferred challenging the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2025 in F.C.M.C.No.24 of 2024 by the learned Family Court -cum- IV Additional District Judge’s Court, at Kurnool, granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month each to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, it is apposite to dispose of the present revision at the stage of admission, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties with a direction to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the main case i.e., F.C.M.C.No.24 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, without granting any adjournment in a casual way by mere asking. The parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court during the course of enquiry. Learned Trial Judge may appreciate the same and take appropriate decision according to law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the present revision.
8. With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, at the stage of admission itself.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.05.2026. UPS
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 509 of 2026
Date: 06.05.2026
UPS