Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/3/2019 of sarella samuel jayanth Vs state of ap on 9 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3/2019 Between: SARELLA SAMUEL JAYANTH, S/O.WILSON, AGED ABOUT 34
APHC010001552019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 3/2019
Between:
SARELLA SAMUEL JAYANTH, S/O.WILSON, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O.SANTHOSHI WORKING MEN’S HOSTEL, D.NO.41/13/E, NEAR
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT D.NO.31-20-8/3, HELBON HOME, KURMANNAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF AP, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
A.P., AMARAVATI
2. SARELLA DIVYA W/O SMUEL JAYANTH, AGED 32 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO.30-82-1/30, MAIN ROAD, NEAR
ROAD
NO.3,
THIRUMAL
NAGAR,
VADLAPUDI
VILLAGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T D PANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S V S PRASADA RAO
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner / husband seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.10.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.889 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
2. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband and Sri S.V.S.Prasada Rao learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 / Wife.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Respondent No.2 / wife is a Software Engineer and has been earning more than the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner filed a divorce petition and as a counterblast, Respondent No.2 filed the maintenance petition. Learned counsel would further submit that, no proof of income of the Petitioner has been filed. Learned counsel would further submit that the trial Court out not to have granted maintenance to the Respondent No.2 / Wife.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 / Wife submits that, Respondent No.2, being the wife of the Petitioner, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 is not doing any job and is dependent on her mother. It is further submitted that no documentary proof is filed by the Petitioner to establish the alleged avocation and income of Respondent No.2.
5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that, as rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, except for a bald assertion that Respondent No.2 is a Software Engineer earning more than the Petitioner, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the same. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 has specifically contended that she is not employed and is dependent on her mother. The Petitioner has also not placed any acceptable material before the trial Court to establish either the gainful employment of the wife or his own inability to pay maintenance. The contention that the maintenance petition has been filed as a counterblast to the divorce proceedings is of no consequence, as the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and cannot be denied on such grounds. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the available materials, has exercised its discretion judiciously in granting maintenance to Respondent No.2. This Court does not find any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the order warranting interference in revision.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the Order dated 30.10.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.889 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judge, Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.04.2026 Dinesh
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.R.C.No.3 OF 2019
Dt.10.04.2026
Dinesh