Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/221/2024 of MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK Vs MUNAVATH SRI USHA on 16 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 221/2024 Between: 1. MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, S/O M. LAKSHMI ROY,
APHC010114992024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, S/O M. LAKSHMI ROY, AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 9-585, OPP. TO POLICE STADIUM, VISALAKSHINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MUNAVATH SRI USHA, W/O MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, D/O
BHULQRA LACHIRAM, AGED 22 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO.
LIG-359, VINAYAK NAGAR, TIMPANY SCHOOL ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM.
2. CHI MUNAVATH SONAKSHI, D/O MUNAVATH JAYARAM NAIK, AGED 1 1/2 YEARS. RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. LIG-359, VINAYAK
NAGAR, TIMPANY SCHOOL ROAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, BEING
MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER /
NATURAL
GUARDIAN - 1ST PETITIONER. .
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT
AMARAVATHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C 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 present Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order dated 16-11-2023 passed in F.C.O.P. No.
1236 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-V
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and pass in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 16-11-2023 passed in F.C.O.P.No.l236 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court- cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the criminal revision case and to pass in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the time for compliance of interim order dated 11-03-2024 passed in lA
No. 1 of 2024 in Crl.R.C.No.221 of 2024 and pass
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to extend the time for payment of 50% of the maintenance and also 50% of the arrears as directed by this Hon’ble Court vide interim order dated 11-03-2024 in IA.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.Rc.No.221 of 2024 and order dated 04- 09-2025 in Crl.R.C.No.221 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P DURGA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2.
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:
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner, seeking to set aside the order dated 16.11.2023 in F.C.O.P. No. 1236 of 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Heard Mr.P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is in attendance. Notice is served on the respondent No.1, none appeared.
3. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 herein are husband and wife. The respondent No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 herein. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, filed F.C.O.P. No. 1236 of 2014 before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, seeking maintenance, wherein, the learned Trial Judge after due enquiry, granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only) to the respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the husband and that the maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider the admission made by the respondent No.1 herein in her cross-examination as PW1, which clearly shows that she voluntarily left the matrimonial home. He further submits that the learned Trial Judge has not considered that the petitioner was earlier unemployed and subsequently, in the year 2022, enrolled as an Advocate and is presently practicing as a Junior Advocate. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into account the weak financial position of the petitioner while granting maintenance. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.1 is well-educated and self-sufficient to maintain herself, and therefore, is not entitled to maintenance.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State, would submit that the learned Trial Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while granting maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is a well reasoned order and does not warrant any interference of this Court. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor finally prays for dismissal of the revision.
6. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and has awarded maintenance in a just and reasonable manner. The learned Judge has correctly held that the petitioner failed to produce any material to prove his contention that the respondent No.1 is running a boutique, whereas the respondent No.1 has stated that she is working in a beauty parlour for a meagre income and is not able to maintain herself. It is also noted that she is living separately and even her father is assisting her by paying rent, which shows her financial dependence. Further, the learned Judge has observed that the petitioner has not disclosed his true income and assets, including alleged immovable properties and earning capacity, in his affidavit. In the absence of proper disclosure, the Trial Court has rightly assessed his income on a notional basis considering his capacity to earn as an able-bodied person. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence, and does not warrant any interference.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the impugned order dated 16.11.2023 in F.C.O.P. No. 1236 of 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 17.04.2026. UPS
Dt.17.04.2026
UPS