Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/434/2024 of Y.PREM SAGAR Vs SMT.V.BHAVANA on 8 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 434/2024 Between: 1. Y.PREM SAGAR, S/O. Y. VENKATA CHALAPATHI, AGED
APHC010216432024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 434/2024
Between:
1. Y.PREM SAGAR, S/O. Y. VENKATA CHALAPATHI, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. D. NO. 20/935, KOTA KURUBA STREET, DHARMAVARAM-515671, SRI SATHYA
SAI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SMT V BHAVANA, W/O. Y. PREM SAGAR, D/O. V VISWANATH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, RIO. D. NO. 21/8/253, TEACHES COLONY. HINDUPUR, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
2. V DHEERKSHIT, S/O. Y. PREM SAGAR, AGED 6 MONTHS. MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER
NO. 1, SMT. V. BHAVANA, W/O. Y PREM SAGAR, D/O. V.
VISWANATH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D. NO.
21/8/253, TEACHES COLONY, HINDUPUR, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS AT NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...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 this Criminal Revision case by setting aside the Order dated 01.12.2023 in CrI.M.P.474/2023 in M.C.No.30/2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur and pass pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuing in order dated 01.12.2023 in CrI.M.P.474/2023 in M.C.No.30/2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hindupur dated 01.12.2023 pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case and pass
pleased May be pleased to condone the delay of 20 days in Representing the lA (SR) No.16762/2026 in CRLRC No.434/2024 and pass
pleased May be pleased to amend the prayer in CRLRC No. 434/2024 as well as in lA instead of Pleased to allow this Criminal Revision case by setting aside the Order dated 01.12.2023 in CrI M P 474/2023 in M C No 30/2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Hindupur”
As Pleased to allow this Criminal Revision case by setting aside the Order dated 01.12.2023 in CrI M P 474/2023 in M C No 30/2022 on the file of the Special Magistrate of I Class Hindpur and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A VARALAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. P RAJESH BABU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
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:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 8Cr.P.C.9) is filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2023 in MC No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to file the present case are that:
i) the Petitioner herein is the husband and respondent No.1 herein is the wife respectively and respondent No.2 herein is their son. Due to misunderstandings between the couple and on the alleged harassment meted out in the hands of the husband and in-laws by the respondent No.1 for want of additional dowry and for other domestic things, the respondent No.1 along with the son respondent No.2 came back to her parents9 house and has been living there.
ii) Since the respondent No.1 allegedly neglected and refused to main the petitioners, MC No. 30 of 2022 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.35,000/- to them. In that MC, Respondent No.1 also filed Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2023 seeking interim maintenance from the Petitioner herein.
iii) The learned Magistrate, having heard both sides and having perusing the material on record partly allowed Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2023 vide order dated 01.12.2023 and granted quantum of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent No.1(wife) and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.2(son) (Total Rs.10,000/- per month) from the date of the petition till the date of disposa of main MC. Questioning the quantum of interim maintenance granted to the respondents 1 and 2, the Petitioner herein, filed the present criminal revision case.
3. Heard Smt.A.Vara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the Trial Court is not justified. The Trial Court ought to have considered the financial condition of the Petitioner and that the respondent No.1 voluntarily left the company of the Petitioner and she has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner. Learned counsel would finally submit that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. Considering the submissions made, the marriage and the relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The fact remains that the couple are separately living and that respondent No.1/wife filed maintenance case against the Petitioner /husband seeking monthly maintenance. In that MC, respondent No.1 also filed Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2023 seeking interim maintenance. The Trial Court granted the quantum of total interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondents 1 and 2 vide Order impugned in this criminal revision case.
7. Be that as it may, no doubt, the order impugned is passed as an interim measure till disposal of the main FCOP.
8. In that view, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, is directed to dispose of the main MC No.30 of 2022 preferably not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, without granting any adjournments in a casual manner on mere asking and without being influenced by the observations if any made in this Order.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 09.04.2026 Mjl/*
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 434 of 2024
09.04.2026 Mjl/*