Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/142/2024 of SRI BOTLAGUDURU SANSAANK Vs Smt Botlaguduru (Alanka) Sri Sunitha, on 6 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION Between: 1. SRI BOTLAGUDURU SANSAANK, BOTLAGUDURU SASAANK, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, AGED 39 YEARS,WORKING AS
APHC010035252024
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. SRI BOTLAGUDURU
LATE
SATYANARAY
MANAGER, NVIDIA,
WING-A, MANYATA
ROAD,BANGALORE,
1. SMT BOTLAGUDURU
YEARS,CLAIMS
DEVANGULA STREE
2. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR, HIGH
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
order of the Additional Fam
FCOP No.937/2022 dt. 10/0
memorandum of criminal re
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section
in the affidavit filed in supp
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: 142/2024
U SANSAANK, BOTLAGUDURU SASA
YANA,
AGED
YEARS,WORK
EMPLOYMENT NO. 10810, CL, JAC
EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK, OUT
KARNATAKA.
...PE
AND
U ALANKA SRI SUNITHA, S/O SASAAN
TO
BE
RESIDING
IN
D.NO.
T,ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM.
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
H COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATHI
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased toAggrie
mily Court, Visakhapatnam in lA No. 1
09/2023, the above-named petitioner pr
evision case on the following among oth
151 CPC praying that in the circumstan
port of the petition, the High Court may
RATAPA
AANK, S/O
KING
AS
CARANDA,
TER RING
TITIONER
NK, AGED
33-12-51,
S PUBLIC
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
ved by the
80/2022, in
resents this
er.
nces stated
be pleased
may be pleased to condone the delay of 03 days in representing the present Crl.Rc.Sr.No.646 of 2024 and 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 suspend the order of the Additional Family Court dt. 10/09/2023 in lA No.
180/2022 in FCOP no. 937/2022 during the pendency of this Pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case (CRLRC), and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.TAMADA RAMJI VARMA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.V V RAVI PRASAD
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 142/2024
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:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.180 of 2022 in F.C.O.P. No.937 of 2022 by the learned Additional Family Court, Visakhapatnam, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent-wife.
2. Heard Sri T. Ramaji Varma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner– husband, and Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material available on record.
3. The brief facts of the caseis that, the respondent-wife was subjected to continuous harassment by the petitioner and his family members for additional dowry and money. It is alleged that she was forced to meet such unlawful demands by raising loans and seeking financial support from her parents. It is further alleged that she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty, including instances of assault, and that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.148 of 2019 for offences under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Due to such circumstances, she left the matrimonial home and is presently residing with her parents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is contrary to law and passed without proper appreciation of facts. He would further submit that the respondent-wife is highly qualified, holding a Master’s degree in Engineering, and was previously employed in a reputed software company at Bangalore drawing a substantial salary. He would further submit that she voluntarily resigned from her employment and, therefore, cannot claim that she is unable to maintain herself. He would further submit that she is capable and qualified person who deliberately gives up employment cannot seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court below has rightly appreciated the material on record and granted reasonable interim maintenance, and that no interference is warranted by this Court.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, It is not in dispute that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and that both are living separately. The reasons for such separation and the rival allegations made by both parties are matters to be adjudicated during the course of trial in the main petition.
7. In the present case, though the petitioner contends that the respondent- wife was employed, the material on record, particularly Ex.A6 (relieving certificate), indicates that she resigned from her employment. The respondent- wife has also placed on record documents such as medical records, photographs, and FIR to substantiate her allegations of harassment. While the truth of these allegations is a matter for trial, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively held that the respondent has sufficient independent income.With regard to the income of the petitioner, documents such as salary certificate (Ex.A4) and income tax statement (Ex.A2) indicate that he has a steady source of income. Taking into consideration of the same, the learned trial Judge has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, which appears to be just and reasonable. This Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main F.C.O.P. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without granting any adjournments in a casual way by mere asking. It is made clear that both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of trial, and the learned Judge shall decide the matter on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 07.03.2026 KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 142/2024
Date 07.03.2026 KKV