Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/371/2026 of KINJARAPU APPANNA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 6 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 371/2026 Between: 1. KINJARAPU APPANNA, S/O VENKATA, AGED ABOUT 41
APHC010161712026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. KINJARAPU APPANNA, S/O VENKATA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC GOVT. TEACHER, M.P.U.P. SCHOOL R/O VENGALA RAO
COLONY,
AMUDALAVALASA,
MAIN
STREET,
YEMBARAM
VILLAGE, LN PETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT AMARAVATI.
2. KINJARAPU SRAVANI KUMARI, W/O KINJARAPU APPANNA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, HOUSE-WIFE, R/O PAIDIKANDULA
PALEM, PAMIDIMUKKAIA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.
3. KINJARAPU INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI, D/O KINJARAPU APPANNA
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, (MINOR).
4. KINJARAPU MAHARSHITHA, D/O KINJARAPU APPANNA HINDU, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, (MINOR). RESPONDENTS NO. 3 4 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2, AND ALL
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 4 ARE RESIDING AT PAIDIKANDULA
PALEM, PAMIDIMUKKAIA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to the above named petitioner begs to
present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the order, dated 10.10.2025 made in CrI.M.P.No. 611 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No. 912 of 2023 the file of the Court of Honble Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for the following and among other 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 condone the delay of days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition challenging the Judgment, dated 10.10.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No. 611 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No. 912 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Family Court- Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District and pass 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 operative part of the Judgment, dated 10.10.2025 made in Cri.M.P.No. 611 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No. 912 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada Krishna District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ARUN KUMAR R
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
I.A.No.1 of 2026
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 371/2026
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.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed, challenging the Order dated 10.10.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No.611 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.912 of 2023 by the learned Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar.R, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.
3. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.
4. The petitioner herein is the husband of Respondent No.2 and father of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, filed F.C.O.P.No.912 of 2023 by the learned Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, seeking monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the said FCOP, the respondent Nos.2 to 4, filed CrI.M.P.No.611 of 2024 in F.C.O.P.No.912 of 2023, seeking interim maintenance. The learned Trial Judge allowed the petition in favor of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by order dated 10.10.2025, granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Respondent No.2 and
Rs.5,000/- per month each to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order of interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to Respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month each to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, is illegal, highside and beyond the capacity of the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, grant of maintenance is excessive and arbitrary.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is justified and well founded and it needs no interference of this Court.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and a perusal of the impugned order shows 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 herein and respondent No. 2. 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. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to interfere in the said order.
Further, this Court does not find any reason to condone the delay of 62 days in filing the revision case.
8. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. However, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main case i.e., F.C.O.P.No.912 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Family Court-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two
(2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and also refer the matter to the Legal Services Authority, concerned, for mediation.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.04.2026. UPS
I.A.No.1 of 2026 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 371/2026 Dt.07.04.2026
UPS