CRLRC/302/2026 of Dumpala Naresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 12 March 2026

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.608 of 2023 in M.C. No.79 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.

2. I.A. No.01 of 2026 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 317 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. The brief facts of the case is that, the 1st respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, instituted M.C. No.79 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her minor son. By order dated 10.03.2018, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the minor son, besides granting Rs.15,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the child. Subsequently, the respondents filed I.A. No.608 of 2023 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance on the ground of substantial increase in cost of living and improvement in the income of the petitioner. It was also contended that earlier awarded maintenance had become insufficient to meet their basic needs and that they were living under financial hardship in a rented house. The petitioner resisted the said application contending that he is working as a Junior Lineman in APSPDCL and is not earning as alleged. He further submitted that several deductions are being made from his salary, including court attachments and loan repayments, and that he is also burdened with maintaining his aged parents and meeting medical expenses of his ailing mother. It was also contended that the 1st respondent is working as a nurse and earning independently, thereby disentitling her to claim enhancement.

The learned Family Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 1st respondent is gainfully employed, as no documentary proof was produced. The Court also observed that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living since 2018 and that the respondents require enhanced financial support. The learned trial Judge further held that the father of the petitioner, being a pensioner, cannot be treated as dependent on the petitioner. Upon considering the salary particulars of the petitioner, the Court found that even after deductions, he is receiving a reasonable income. Accordingly, the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.9,000/- to the wife and Rs.6,000/- to the minor son, payable from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision contending that the enhancement is excessive and that the trial Court failed to consider his financial liabilities and obligations. It is also reiterated that the 1st respondent is capable of maintaining herself.

4. Heard Ms. Priyanka Grandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K,Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the order of the learned Family Court enhancing the maintenance is unsustainable both on facts and in law. It is submitted that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the financial capacity of the petitioner, who is working as a Junior Lineman and drawing only a modest salary. The counsel further contended that substantial deductions are being made from the petitioner’s salary towards court attachments and repayment of loans, thereby considerably reducing his take-home income. It is also contended that the petitioner is burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and incurring medical expenses for his ailing mother, which aspect has not been duly considered by the trial Court. The learned counsel further submit that the 1st respondent is gainfully employed as a nurse and is earning independently, and therefore, she is not entitled to seek enhancement of maintenance. Lastly, it is contended that the quantum of maintenance enhanced by the trial Court is excessive, disproportionate to the petitioner’s income, and beyond his financial means, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned trial Judge has passed a well-reasoned order after considering all the relevant factors and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

7. At the outset, this Court finds that there is a delay of 317 days in filing the revision. The petitioner has not placed sufficient material to explain the inordinate delay. No convincing reasons are forthcoming to condone such delay.

8. Even on merits, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the original maintenance was awarded in the year 2018. With the passage of time, the cost of living has increased significantly. Section 127 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to modify maintenance upon proof of change in circumstances.

9. The learned Family Court has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner failed to prove the employment of the 1st respondent. Such finding, being based on appreciation of evidence, does not suffer from perversity warranting interference.

10. The Court has also taken into consideration the income and liabilities of the petitioner, including deductions from salary. The contention regarding dependency of parents was examined and rightly rejected, particularly in view of the fact that the father of the petitioner is a pensioner. The enhancement granted by the trial Court appears to be just, reasonable, and commensurate with the needs of the wife and minor child, as well as the earning capacity of the petitioner.

11. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless there is illegality, perversity, or material irregularity. In the present case, no such infirmity is demonstrated.

12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any valid grounds either for condonation of delay or for interference with the impugned order.

13. In the result, I.A. No.01 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay of 317 days is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 13.03.2026. KKV

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

I.A.No.01 of 2026 In/And Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2026

Dated 13.03.2026

KKV

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 302/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date

ORDER

OFFICE NOTE

13.03.2026

Dr.VJP,J

I.A.No.01 of 2026 In/And Crl.R.C.No.302 of 2026

I.A.No.1 of 2026 is dismissed; consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

(Vide separate common Order) _________ Dr.VJP, J KKV