Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/642/2024 of PULIPATI SURESH BABU Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 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. PULIPATI SURESH BABU, S/O. SALOMAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O.
APHC010309942024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. PULIPATI SURESH
YEARS, R/O. DOPPA
1. STATE
OF
ANDH
PROSECUTOR, H
AMARAVATI.
2. PULIPATI SUVARNA
YEARS, R/O. ANAND
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
set a side the interim orde
dt. 11.08.2022 on the file o
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section
in the affidavit filed in supp
pleased condone the delay
2024 and pass
IA NO: 2 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: 642/2024
BABU, S/O. SALOMAN, AGED A
ALAPUDI, PONNUR, GUNTUR
...PE
AND
HRA
PRADESH,
REP.
BY
ITS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
A KUMARI, W/O. SURESH BABU,
APURAM (V), GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased tomay be
er passed in CRL MP 453/2019 in MC.
of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalli 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan port of the petition, the High Court may of 619 days in filing the CrI. R.C. Sr. N
RATAPA
BOUT 36
TITIONER
PUBLIC
DESH AT
AGED 32
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
pleased to
35/2019 on
nces stated
be pleased
No. 6499 Of
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 interim suspension of the order passed in Crl. MP 453/2019 in MC.
35/2019 on dt. 11.08.2022 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalli and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SRINIVASU L
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.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: 642/2024
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 11.08.2022 passed in Crl.M.P. No.453 of 2019 in M.C. No.35 of 2019 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed in part, directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife.
2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 619 days in filing the present Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri L. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, irregular, and contrary to the evidence on record. The Court below failed to consider the conduct of the respondent-wife, who allegedly picked up frequent quarrels, behaved cruelly, and insisted on living separately, thereby making the marital life of the petitioner difficult.With regard to delay, learned counsel submits that the petitioner approached him belatedly, and upon such instructions, the revision was filed. The delay of 619 days is neither willful nor wanton. If the delay is not condoned, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.
Hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned and the revision be allowed.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court. She would further submit that there is an inordinate delay of 619 days in filing the present revision and no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner to condone such delay. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays that the application for condonation of delay as well as the Criminal Revision Case be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the learned trial Judge, by order dated 11.08.2022, granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent- wife. It is evident from the pleadings of both parties that serious allegations are made against each other. The respondent-wife has lodged a complaint vide Crime No.78 of 2018 for offences under Sections 498-A and 323 r/w 34 IPC. She has also initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The truth or otherwise of these allegations can only be determined after a full-fledged trial. Prima facie, the respondent-wife has shown sufficient cause for living separately from the petitioner. With regard to the quantum of maintenance, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is employed in the Indian Army. Though he contends that he is not presently working and is suffering from ailments, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the same. Similarly, the contention that the respondent- wife is earning has not been supported by any material evidence. In such circumstances, being the husband, the petitioner is legally bound to provide maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court appears to be reasonable and does not warrant interference by this Court. Coming to the delay of 619 days in filing the revision, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the petitioner to condone such an inordinate delay. This Court finds no sufficient cause to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is also dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, 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
I.A.No.1 of 2024 IN/AND CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 642/2024
Dt.07.03.2026
KKV