Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/878/2025 of Shaik Tariq Ahmed Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 1 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 878/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK TARIQ AHMED, S/O ALHAJ SHAIK SADIKVALI,
APHC010423862025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. SHAIK TARIQ AHMED, S/O ALHAJ SHAIK SADIKVALI, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS, MUSLIM R/O. PLOT NO. 13 AND 14, STREET NO. 1
NMDC COLONY EAST ANANDBADH, MALKAJGIRI, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT
2. A GOUSIYA BEGUM, W/O. SHAIK TARIQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS,
MUSLIM
R/O.
D.
NO.
12-5-169-3,
2ND
CROSS,
VIDYUTHSHAKTHI NAGAR HOUSING BOARD ANANTHAPURAM
TOWN AND 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 set-aside the order dated 14.11.2024
passed by The Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapur in F.C.O.P No. 174 of 2020 and pass 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 to condone the delay of 164 in filing the present CrI.R.C against the order dt.
14.11.2024 passed in FCOP No. 174/2020 by The Judge, Family Court-Cum- 7*'^ Addl. District Court, Ananthapur pass 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 to dispense with the certified copy of decree dated 14.11.2024 passed by The Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapur in F.C.O.P No.
174 of 2020 and pass
IA NO: 3 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 to stay of all further proceedings against the order dt. 14.11.2024 passed in FCOP No. 174/2020 by The Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapur, pending disposal of the main criminal revision case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NARASIMHULU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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:
Heard Sri P.Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.
2. This revision is preferred against the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum-VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapur in F.C.O.P No. 174 of 2020 granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 /wife from the date of filing of the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the maintenance granted by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side. The learned Judge failed to consider the substantial recurring expenses and the existing financial liabilities borne by the petitioner. The petitioner is unemployed, who has no sufficient source of income in order to comply with the order passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Judge failed to consider the fact that the 2nd respondent failed to prove that the petitioner is working as a software engineer and earning an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. He would further submit that the marriage of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent already dissolved by way of divorce on 02.01.2023. He finally prays to allow the petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the impugned order is a well reasoned one and does not warrant any interference of this Court, as the petitioner, being the husband, is legally bound to maintain his wife, and the maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month is reasonable and commensurate with the present cost of living. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would further submit that the divorce does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance and cannot absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to maintain his wife. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. 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 the oral and documentary evidence and, upon proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason for separation has granted maintenance in a just and reasonable manner. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the Criminal Revision is liable to be dismissed, since the revision lacks merit.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 02.04.2026. UPS
Dt.02.04.2026
UPS