Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/293/2026 of ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR Vs ELURU RAMYA SRI @ KAKANI RAMYA SRI on 10 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. ELURU VEERENDRA KUMAR, S/O E. NAGA RAJU, AGED 36 YEARS, R/O. FLAT. NO. 403, RAMAKRISHNA RESIDENCY, PLOT NO.40 AND 46, OPP. L AND N
. 0l.0ol.APHC010128992026
IN TH
WEDNESDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. ELURU VEERENDRA
YEARS, R/O. FLAT.
NO.40 AND 46, OP
MOSQUE,
J.P.
TELANGANA
1. ELURU RAMYA SRI
KUMAR, AGED 32 Y
CENTRE, KANURU
WORKING AS SENIO
3RD
FLOOR,
IG
VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.
2. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR H
AMARAVATI, GUNTU
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
the order dated 24-12-
FCOP(MC).835 of 2024 on
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026
A KUMAR, S/O E. NAGA RAJU,
NO. 403, RAMAKRISHNA RESIDENC
PP. L AND N RESTAURANT, NEAR
NAGAR,
MIYAPUR,
HYDERABAD-
...PE
AND
KAKANI RAMYA SRI, W/O ELURU VEE
YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 8-252, KAMAYY
U, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R. DISTRICT -
OR LECTURER, NALANDA DEGREE C
GMS
COMPLEX,
M.G.
ROAD,
L
. DISTRICT-520010
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
UR DISTRICT.
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased toPleased t
- 2024 passed in CRL.MP.No.5
the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court SH
RATAPA
AGED 36
CY, PLOT
MAKTHA
TITIONER
ERENDRA
YATHOPU
- 520 007
COLLEGE,
LABBIPET,
PUBLIC
DESH AT
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
to set aside
52/2025 in
t -Cum- XIV
Additional District And Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, in the interest of justice and pass 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 pleased to grant to stay all further proceedings in pursuant to the Order passed in CRL.MP. No. 52/2025 in FCOP(M.C). 835 of 2024 on the file of the Judge Addl. Family Court -Cum- XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh dated 24-12-2025, pending disposal of the above revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2.
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026
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.
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.(MC) No.835 of 2024 by the learned XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was granted in favour of the respondent-wife.
2. Heard Sri Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the revision petitioner– husband, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the trial Court committed an error in granting interim maintenance despite recording findings that the respondent–wife failed to establish the petitioner’s income and also failed to disclose her own income and expenditure. It is further contended that the respondent–wife voluntarily deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause and she is disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It is also urged that the quantum granted is arbitrary and not based on proper assessment of income.
4. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the material on record and granted reasonable interim maintenance, and that the order does not warrant interference.
5. Considering the submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that both are living separately. The reasons for such separation, including allegations of desertion and cruelty, are matters which require detailed adjudication during the trial in the main petition. The scope of consideration in the present revision is limited to examine the correctness of the interim maintenance granted. At the stage of interim maintenance, a detailed examination of disputed facts is neither warranted nor permissible.
6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and affidavits of assets and liabilities filed by both parties, observed that though the respondent–wife failed to establish the income of the petitioner and also did not furnish complete particulars of her expenditure, the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife cannot be ignored.
7. In the present case, the trial Court has exercised its discretion and awarded a modest sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. This Court does not find the said amount to be excessive or unreasonable warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The contentions raised by the revision petitioner regarding desertion, independent income of the respondent–wife, and other disputed facts are matters to be decided in the main proceedings and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main F.C.O.P. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting adjournments in a causal way by way of mere asking. It is made clear that both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of trial, and the learned Judge shall decide the matter on its own merits, without influenced by any observations made in this order. The arrears of interim maintenance, if any, shall be paid by the revision petitioner in four (4) equal monthly installments As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 293/2026
Date 11.03.2026 KKV