Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/906/2024 of VASAMSETTY RAMESH Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 5 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA I.A.No.1 of 2024 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 906/2024 Between: 1. VASAMSETTY RAMESH, S/0
APHC010389902024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 906/2024
Between:
1. VASAMSETTY RAMESH, S/0 VENKATARAMANA MURTHY, AGED 33
YEARS, OCC UNEMPLOYED, R/0 D.NO. 21-29/2, VIMAN NAGAR, 0PP. AIRPORT ROAD, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE
OF
ANDHRA
PRADESH,
REP.
BY
ITS
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.
2. VASAMSETTY GIRIJA KALYANI, D/0 B. SURYAPRAKASH RAO, AGED 24 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, AT D.NO. 2-5-205/1, LISIPURAM, NEAR
RYTHUBAZAAR
JUNCTION,
SRIKAKULAM
TOWN AND DISTRICT.
3. VASAMSETTY SATYA MOHIT, S/0 RAMESH, AGED 5 YEARS, BEING
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., 1ST RESPONDENT VASAMSETTY GIRIJA KALYANI, AT D.NO. 2-5- 205/1, LISIPURAM, NEAR RYTHUBAZAAR JUNCTION, SRIKAKULAM
TOWN AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C 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 relating to the order made in CrI.M.P.No.90 of 2019 in M.C.No.17 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court -cum- III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, dated 21-03-2022 and set aside the same and pass such may be pleased to condone the delay of 807 days in filling representing the petition, in the interest of justice as otherwise 1/ Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.
may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2019 in F.C.M.C. No.17 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court -cum- III Additional District & Sessions Court, Srikakulam District and pass such
may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CrI.M.P.No.90 of 2019 in M.C.No.17 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court - cum- III Additional 2J District & Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District, dated 21--03-2022, pending disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PANGI RAJU BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. BOPPUDI ALEKHYA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024
In/and
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 906/2024
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 JUDGMENT:
The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 02.03.2022 by the CrI.M.P.No.90 of 2019 in M.C.No.17 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court -cum-III Additional District and Sessions Court, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District.
2. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 807 days in filing the above Criminal Revision Case.
3. Heard Sri Pangi Raju Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Boppudi Alekhya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order enhancing the maintenance passed by the learned Trial Judge is not sustainable in law, as the same was granted without properly considering the earning capacity of the petitioner. It is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to take into account the actual financial status, income, and liabilities of the petitioner, and therefore the enhancement of maintenance is arbitrary, excessive, and liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that there is no valid reason assigned by the petitioner for condonation of the inordinate delay of 807 days in filing the revision. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is contended that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and passed a reasoned order of enhancement of maintenance. Hence, the present revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
7. Considering the submissions made and as can be seen from the record, no justifiable reason has been assigned by the petitioner to condone the delay of 807 days in preferring this revision. Be that as it may, the impugned order would show that in F.C.M.C. No.17 of 2014, the learned Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, vide order dated 15.02.2016, granted maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.3. Subsequently, Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2019 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, seeking enhancement of maintenance, and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 21.03.2022, enhancing the maintenance to Rs.9,000/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.3, respectively. The learned Trial Judge, while enhancing the maintenance, also observed that the petitioner failed to comply with the earlier order passed by this Court in
C.R.P. No.1056 of 2016 and is liable to pay the maintenance as ordered. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the said order, and accordingly finds no reason to condone the delay of 807 days in filing the revision case.
8. 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: 06.03.2026. UPS
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
I.A.No.1 of 2024 In/and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 906/2024 Dt.06.03.2026
UPS