Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/272/2026 of MADDELA ROY VIJAYA BHASKAR Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 272/2026 Between: 1. MADDELA ROY VIJAYA BHASKAR, S/O LATE HARRY
APHC010120992026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. MADDELA ROY VIJAYA BHASKAR, S/O LATE HARRY JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. F-406, STERLING -2, MAHINDRA
RAYALE,
NEHRUNAGAR
ROAD,
NEAR
ETEN
COMPANY, PIMPRI, PUNE -411018.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATHI.
2. MADDELA SATYA HARSHA VALLI, W/O ROY VIJAYA BHASKAR, D/O KUNCHENAPALLI GABRIEL MOSES, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 27-10-25/2, KANNAVARITHOTA, 1ST LINE, GUNTUR.
3. MADDELA JONATHAN, S/O ROY VIJAYA BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT
17 YEARS, REP. BY HIS MOTHER, MADDELA SATYA HARSHA
VALLI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 27-10-25/2, KANNAVARITHOTA, 1ST LINE, GUNTUR.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records and set aside the Order dated 19.09.2025 passed in FCOP No. 344 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court -cum - XII Additional District Judge, Guntur 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 to stay the operation of the order and decree dated 19.09.2025 passed in FCOP
No. 344 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court -cum - XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the above Criminal Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
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.
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Revision was preferred challenging the order and decree dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, in F.C.O.P.No.344 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri K.V.Aditya Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his wife and minor son respectively. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed F.C.O.P.No.344 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and the same is allowed in part, directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.20,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order granting Rs.20,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein/petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 therein, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is illegal, as no finding was recorded that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves. It is submitted that the maintenance granted by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable since the same was granted without considering the earning capacity of the petitioner. He would further submit that the allegation that the petitioner demanded additional dowry Rs.30,00,000/- nearly after 18 years of their marriage is highly improbable.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is legal and no interference of this Court is warranted.
6. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material on record, this Court is of the view that, the respondents have demonstrated need for maintenance, and the petitioner, being an able-bodied person, is bound to support his wife and child. The decision of the learned Trial Judge is based on sound judicial principles and proper appreciation of the material on record, taking into consideration the income of the husband as Rs.1,70,000/- per month. The learned Judge has rightly granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month each to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 therein). The learned Trial Judge has properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and the impugned order is legal and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. In that view of the matter, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026. UPS
Dt.07.03.2026
UPS