Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/28/2024 of M.Padmoji Rao Vs P. Vijayeswari Bai, on 6 March 2026
IN THE 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: 28/2024 Between: 1. M.PADMOJI RAO, ,S/O M.LINGOJI
APHC010009412024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 28/2024
Between:
1. M.PADMOJI RAO, ,S/O M.LINGOJI RAO O/O ICDS PROJECT, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT NEAR I.M.A HALL, NOONEVARIPALLI ROAD RAJAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. P VIJAYESWARI BAI, W/o M.Padmoji Rao D/o P.Vittal Rao, Aged about 30 years Housewife, Hindu R/o H.No. 36/18, Mamthi Veedhi Kammari Street, Kurnool.
...RESPONDENT
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toMemorandum of Appeal against the Order dated 21.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2022
in F.C.M.C. No. 73 of 2021, on the file of The Judge, Family Court- Cum- IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 1 21.11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.32 of 2022 in F.C.M.C. No. 73 of 2021, on the file of j The Judge, Family Court- Cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, pending final adjudication of the present appeal and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 28/2024
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.
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, in Crl.M.P. No.32 of 2022 in F.C.M.C. No.73 of 2021.
2. Heard Sri N.V.Sumanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. The petitioner herein is the husband of respondent. Respondent, being the wife, filed Crl.M.P. No.32 of 2022 in F.C.M.C.No.73 of 2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the material available on record, partly allowed the said petition and directed the petitioner/husband to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in law. It is argued that the trial Court failed to record a specific finding that the respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned Judge did not properly consider the earning capacity and financial liabilities of the petitioner while awarding maintenance, and therefore, the quantum fixed is arbitrary. It is further submitted that the respondent got government employment during the pendency of the case.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the order passed by the learned trial Judge is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is contended that the trial Court has duly considered the income and status of both parties and has granted only a reasonable amount as maintenance. Hence, no interference by this Court is warranted.
6. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material available on record, the learned trial Judge, after due appreciation of the evidence and material on record, has exercised jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in a proper manner and awarded a modest sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the said finding warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
7. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, the main case pertains to the year 2021, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main F.C.M.C. No. 73 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the trial Court shall decide the matter independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Both parties are at liberty to raise all their respective contentions during the course of trial.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026. KKV
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:28 /2024
Dt.07.03.2026
KKV