Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1040/2025 of S Gayatri Vs T Balasubramanyam alias Bala Subramanayma Tumkuru 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: 1040/2025 Between: 1. S GAYATRI, WIFE OF T.BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED
APHC010488262025
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: 1040/2025
Between:
1. S GAYATRI, WIFE OF T.BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO.20-5-455B, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. SANJAY GANDHI ROAD,
2. MASTER T DHANVEER KARTHIKEYA, 2YEARS BEING A MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER
SMT. S.GAYATRI, AND SON OF T.BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO.20-5-455B, SANJAY GANDHI ROAD, KORLAGUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. T
BALASUBRAMANYAM
ALIAS
BALA
SUBRAMANAYMA
TUMKURU, SON OF T.DHARINIPATNI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE, ASPIRE SYSTEMS 1ST FLOOR, RBD
ICON LENOVO OFFICE, 2, OUTER RING RD, DODDANEKUNDI, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560037
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order pleased to pass in CRL.M.P.NO. 41 OF 2025 in FCOP.NO.IO OF 2025 on the file of Honble Family Court cum V Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 10.05.2025 and consequently consider the interim maintenance as claimed by the petitioners and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to condone the delay of 31days in filing the above said criminal revision petition, otherwise the petitioners will suffer heavily and irreparably and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2025
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 may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent herein to pay the
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st Petitioner and Rs. 10,000/- to the 2nd petitioner as prayed in CRL.MP.No.41 of 2025 in FCOP.No. 10 of 2025 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court cum V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, pending disposal of the above said criminal petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V SURENDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. JAYA SANKAR MEDI
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 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 8BNSS, 20239) is filed by the Petitioners aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 10.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 in FCOP No.10 of 2025 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to file the present case are that:
i) the Petitioner No.1 herein is the wife and respondent No.1 herein is the husband and their marriage was performed on 25.11.2020 at Tirupati. During their wedlock, they blessed with a male child who is petitioner No.2 herein. Due to misunderstandings between the couple and on the alleged harassment meted out in the hands of the husband and in-laws by the petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry and for other domestic things, Petitioner No.1 along with Petitioner 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, FCOP No.10 of 2005 is filed by the Petitioners before the Court of the Family Court Judge-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati seeking monthly maintenance. Along with the FCOP, she also filed Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 seeking maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.2.
iii) The learned Judge, Family Court, having heard both sides and having perusing the material on record allowed Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 by docket order dated 10.05.2025 granted Rs.3,500/- per month each to the Petitioners herein
(Total Rs.7,000/- per month) from the date of the petition till the date of FCOP. Seeking enhancement of the monthly maintenance amount, the Petitioners herein, filed the present criminal revision case.
3. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri Jaya Sankar learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the quantum of interim maintenance granted by the Trial Court is not justified. The order is a docket order and without assigning any reasons, granted meagre amount of interim maintenance to the Petitioners. The Trial Court ought to have considered the financial condition of the Respondent No.1 who is a software Engineer and getting handsome salary. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent No.1 has no interest to lead marital life with the petitioner No.1 in a peaceful atmosphere. 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 Petitioner No.1/wife filed maintenance case against the Respondent No.1/husband seeking monthly maintenance. In that FCOP, Petitioner No.1 also filed Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2025 seeking interim maintenance. The Trial Court granted the quantum of total interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- p.m. to the Petitioners 1 and 2 vide Docket Order dated 10.05.2025 which is impugned in this criminal revision case. No doubt, it is a docket order and no reasons are assigned for granting the interim maintenance to the petitioners 1 and 2.
7. Be that as it may, respondent No.1 /husband is working as a Software Engineer and getting monthly salary. No doubt, the order impugned is passed as an interim measure till disposal of the main FCOP. As can be seen from the order impugned, in the absence of adducing any evidence by the parties, it seems, the learned Judge, Family Court, by relying on the pleadings and oral submissions, granted interim maintenance.
8. In that view, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Learned V Additional District Judge-cum- Family Court Judge, Tirupati, is directed to dispose of the main FCOP No.10 of 2025 itself as expeditiously as possible, 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. 1040 of 2025
09.04.2026 Mjl/*