Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/731/2024 of MADIKI VENKATA RAMAN Vs MADIKI SOWJANYA 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. MADIKI VENKATA RAMAN, S/O. MADIKI VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35
APHC010332052024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. MADIKI VENKATA R
AGED ABOUT 35 YE
D.NO 1-2-4, KONDA
GODAVARI DISTRICT
1. MADIKI SOWJANYA,
YEARS, OCC HOUSE
NAGAR, KANURU V
DISTRICT, ANDHRA
2. THE
STATE
OF
PROSECUTOR HIG
DISTRICT.
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
the Order dated 27-09-202
1462 of 2021 on the file of
District Court, Vijayawada,
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
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: 731/2024
RAMAN, S/O. MADIKI VENKATA SUB
EARS, OCC SUB INSPECTOR OF POL
AYYAPETA, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL
T, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PE
AND
, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED A
E WIFE, R/O D.NO 17-260, ROAD NO 5
VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL,
PRADESH.
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.BY
GH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATHI
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased topleased to
3 passed in Crl.M.P No 326 of 2023 in
f The Principal Family Court - Cum - IV
Krishna District, as prayed for. and to pa
RATAPA
BBA RAO,
LICE, R/O
L, EAST
TITIONER
ABOUT 32
5, TULASI
KRISHNA
PUBLIC
GUNTUR
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
o set aside
FCOP No
V Additional
ass
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 217 days in filing of said revision againstcondone the delay of Crl.M.P.No.326 of 2023 in FCOP No.l462 of 2021 and to pass IA NO: 2 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 Pleased to stay all further proceedings pertaining to Crl.M.P. No. 326 of 2023
in FCOP No. 1462 of 2021, pending on the file of Principal Family Court Cum IV Addl District Judge, Vijayawada, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.TURAGA SAI SURYA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.VENKAT CHALASANI
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 731/2024
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.
COMMON ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to set aside the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No.326 of 2023 in F.C.O.P. No.1462 of 2021 by the learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Court, Vijayawada, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C was allowed, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of petition till disposal of the main case.
2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 217 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri Turga Sai Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Chalasani, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent was already receiving widow pension and that the petitioner, being a Sub-Inspector under suspension, is facing financial hardship. It is further submitted that the petitioner has medical expenses towards treatment of his son suffering from a serious brain-related condition. The delay of 217 days is stated to be neither willful nor intentional, but due to unavoidable circumstances.
5. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity. It is further contended that no satisfactory explanation is offered for the inordinate delay of 217 days and therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds for interference.
7. Considering the submissions and perusal of the material on record, finds that the trial Court granted interim maintenance based on a prima facie assessment of the relationship and financial status of the parties. At the stage of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to assess the existence of a prima facie case and cannot conduct a detailed enquiry into disputed facts. The material placed on record, including the alleged marriage receipt, photographs, WhatsApp communications, and evidence relating to payment of rent, prima facie indicate the existence of a relationship between the parties. These aspects are to be adjudicated in detail during the trial in the main petition. The petitioner, being a police officer, was drawing a net salary of approximately Rs.61,240/- per month as per the material available. The respondent, on the other hand, has no sufficient independent source of income. The contention regarding widow pension is not substantiated by any current material. In view of the above, the award of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month appears to be reasonable and justified, and does not warrant interference by this Court. Coming to the delay of 217 days in filing the revision, this Court finds that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone such an inordinate delay. The reasons assigned by the petitioner are not convincing.
8. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of F.C.O.P.No.1462 0f 2021 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by any observations made herein. Both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of enquiry before the trial Court. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:731/2024 Dt.07.03.2026
KKV