Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/616/2024 of V. Brahmeswara Rao, Vs Smt. C.K. Indira, on 6 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: 1. V. BRAHMESWARA RAO,, SON OF V. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDENT
APHC010295692024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. V. BRAHMESWARA R
YEARS, RESIDENT
KHILLA ROAD, KOND
1. SMT C K INDIRA, D/
YEARS. WIFE OF V.
NO. 43-223, N.R. PET
2. V VENU SATYA GO
AGED 7 YEARS, M
GUARDIAN, SMT. C
KURNOOL.
3. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR,
AMARAVATI, GUNTU
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
Grounds of Criminal Revis
passed in CRL.MP.No. 23
Family Court Cum IV Addl.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Y,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 616/2024
RAO,, SON OF V. SATYANARAYANA,
OF HOUSE NO. 32-53, BOMMALA
DAPALLI, KRISHANA DISTRICT
...PE
AND
/O. C.K. SATYANARAYANA ACHARI,
BRAHMESWARA RAO, RESIDENT O
TA, KURNOOL.
OPAL KRISHANA, SON OF SMT. C.K
MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER AND
C.K INDIRA, HOUSE NO. 43-223, N.
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
HIGH
COURT
OF
ANDHRA
P
UR DISTRICT.
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased toMemo
sion Case against the Order dated
3 of 2022 in FCMC.No.11 of 2022 on
District Judge, Kurnool
RATAPA
AGED 40
COLONY,
TITIONER
AGED-36
F HOUSE.
K. INDIRA,
NATURAL
R.. PETA,
S PUBLIC
PRADESH,
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
orandum of
12.04.2024
n the file of
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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 may be pleased to suspend the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in CRL.MP.
No. 23 of 2022 in FCMC. No. 11 of 2022 on the file of Family Court Cum IV
Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of above revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.NAGA RAJU B K
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 616/2024
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:
No representation on behalf of the petitioner. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter and decide the issue on merits.
2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to set aside the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.23 of 2022 in F.C.M.C. No.11 of 2022 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor son of the parties.
3. A perusal of the record shows that initially, the 1st respondent herein filed a maintenance petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son. Subsequently, she secured employment as an Assistant Professor in G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. She then amended her petition to seek maintenance only for her minor son, who is approximately four years old, and the Family Court allowed the petition to that extent.The affidavits of assets and liabilities reveal that both the petitioner and the 1st respondent are postgraduates with similar qualifications, each drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs.30,000/-. The minor child is in the custody of the 1st respondent. The petitioner claims to be unemployed but owns certain properties. Considering the circumstances, and the fact that the 1strespondent is now self-sufficient, the initial claim for her maintenance is withdrawn, seeking the maintenance claim only for the minor child.
4. The Court observes that while the 1st respondent is employed and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, she is self-sufficient and not dependent on the petitioner for her own livelihood. However, the minor child, being four years old, is entirely dependent on both parents for maintenance and upbringing.The Court further notes that all allegations regarding the parties’ conduct, including the petitioner’s employment status and properties, will be fully examined during the main proceedings. At this stage, the Court’s concern is limited to ensuring that the minor child receives reasonable interim maintenance. The interim maintenance order is consistent with legal principles and does not warrant interference in this revision petition.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned Family Court, during the course of enquiry, the learned trial Judge may take appropriate decision over the matter according to the law without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:07.03.2026 KKV
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 616/2024
Dt.07.03.2026
KKV