Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/410/2023 of SADARABOINA GOPI SUDHAKAR Vs SADARABOINA VIJAYALAKSHMI 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: 410/2023 Between: SADARABOINA GOPI SUDHAKAR, S/O. VENKATA RAO,
APHC010236282023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 410/2023
Between:
SADARABOINA GOPI SUDHAKAR, S/O. VENKATA RAO, AGED 37
YEARS,
R/O.
D.NO.87-3-230/4,
BESIDE
GALAXY
BAR,
VENKATAPPAIAH COLONY, GUNTUR.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SADARABOINA VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. S. GOPISUDHAKAR AGED
38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.26-38-143/1, 12TH LANE, A.T.AGRAHARAM, OPP. MILK BOOTH, GUNTUR.
2. SADARABOINAVEDASIRI, D/O. S. GOPISUDHAKAR AGED 9
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.26-38-143/1, 12TH LANE, A.T.AGRAHARAM, OPP. MILK BOOTH, GUNTUR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ARUN SHOWRI G
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
-----
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 06.03.2023 passed in FCOP No.470 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner / Husband.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a car driver and gets only Rs.500/- per a day and that the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month granted by the learned trial Judge to Respondent No.2 / daughter, is excessive and beyond the financial capability of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is ready and willing to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter.
4. Though notice was sent to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, none appeared on their behalf.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that the relationship between the parties and the paternity of Respondent No.2 are not in dispute. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court warrants interference.
6. The object of granting maintenance is to ensure that the child is able to maintain a standard of living consistent with basic human dignity. The father is under a legal and moral obligation to provide for his minor child. Merely stating that the income is limited cannot be a ground to evade or substantially reduce such responsibility, particularly when no cogent evidence has been produced to conclusively establish inability to pay.
7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the needs of the child and the earning capacity of the Petitioner, has fixed the maintenance at Rs.8,000/- per month. This Court does not find the said amount to be excessive, especially in the present-day context of rising costs of education, food, healthcare, and other basic necessities. The willingness expressed by the Petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month does not adequately meet the needs of the minor child. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Judge, warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Order dated 06.03.2023 passed in FCOP No.470 of 2015 by the learned Family Judge-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur. Petitioner is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance, if any, in four equal monthly instalments.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.04.2026 Dinesh
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.R.C.No.410 OF 2023
Dt. 02.04.2026
Dinesh