Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/908/2021 of Gadireddy Murali Krishna, Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 24 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. GADIREDDY MURALI KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU,
APHC010526962021
IN THE H
(
WEDNESDAY,TH
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. GADIREDDY MURAL
YEARS, HINDU, EMP
STAND
CENTER,
PRAKASAM DISTRIC
1. THE STATE OF AN
PRADESH, REP BY
BUILDINGS, AMARAV
2. YELLAPRAGADA SU
D/O. NAGESWARA
RELATIVES PROTE
ONGOLE CITY, PRAK
3. GADIREDDY HANE
HINDU, AGED ABOUT
HIS MOTHER 1ST PE
ABOUT 35 YEARS, H
1-25, GODUGUPALEM
Revision filed under
circumstances
stated
in
CriminalRevisionCase, the
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
HE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUAR
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021
LI KRISHNA,, S/O RAMA RAO, AGED A
PLOYEE IN INDUS IND BANK, NELL
ONGOLE
CITY,
ONGOLE
MA
CT.
...PE
AND
NDHRA PRADESH, THE STATE OF
ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
VATHI,
NEETHA, W/O GADIREDDY MURALI
RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
CTION, R/O D.NO. 6-1-25, GODUG
KASAM DISTRICT.
ESH, S/O GADIREDDY MURALI
T 3 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPRESE
ETITIONER YALLPRAGADA SUNEETH
HINDU, RELATIVES PROTECTION, R/O
M, ONGOLE CITY, PRAKASHAM DIST
...RESPON
Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t
n
the
affidavit
filed
in
support
High Court may be pleased toAggrie
RY
RATAPA
ABOUT 40
ORE BUS
ANDALAM,
TITIONER
ANDHRA
H COURT
KRISHNA,
, HINDU,
GUPALEM,
KRISHNA,
ENTED BY
HA, AGED
O D.NO.6-
TRICT.
NDENT(S):
that in the
t
of
the
ved by the
interim maintenance order passed in Crl.MP.No.349 of 2019 in M.C.NO.42 of 2019 on the file of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 30.11.2021 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021
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 of all further proceedings including execution in pursuant to the order passed in Crl.MP.No.349 of 2019 in M.C.NO.42 of 2019 on the file of VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, dated 30.11.2021 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.A RADHAKRISHNA
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021
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 Petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl.M.P. No.349 of 2019 in M.C. No. 42 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereby the learned Magistrate granted a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- to the minor son towards interim maintenance.
2. Heard Mrs. T.Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy, Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent–State and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent–wife is well qualified, capable of earning, and had previously worked in a school, and therefore awarding Rs.7,000/- per month towards her maintenance is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that he is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher on contract basis drawing Rs.21,300/- per month and that contract employees receive salary only for ten months in a year. He asserts that he joined service only in July, 2021 and has not been paid salary, making it difficult to comply with the order directing payment of Rs.10,000/- per month in total. It is also contended that the wife left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and is therefore disentitled to maintenance. He further submits that the 2nd respondent filed criminal cases under Section 498-A IPC and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act with mala fide intention, and that an earlier maintenance case was withdrawn pursuant to a compromise. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the documents filed by him and granted interim maintenance without due consideration of the factual and financial circumstances.
4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the order under revision is a well-considered and reasoned one, passed after due appreciation of the material available on record, and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. She would further submit that the trial Court has exercised its discretion while granting interim maintenance.
5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the impugned order is lawful and passed after proper consideration of the material on record. He would further submit that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife and respondent No.3 is the minor son of the petitioner, and both are dependent on him for their maintenance. The petitioner, being employed and earning a regular income, has sufficient means but has neglected to maintain them. He would further submit that the disputed allegations raised by the petitioner are matters for trial in the main maintenance case and that the interim maintenance awarded is reasonable and requires no interference.
6. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, the impugned order discloses that the trial Court, taking into consideration the pleadings of both parties, the prima facie material placed before it, and the financial capacity of the parties granted interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month in toto to the wife and son, pending adjudication of the main case.
7. The reasons assigned for granting interim maintenance are well founded and justified and the same do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court. The contentions raised by the revision petitioner are all disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated during the course of enquiry in the main maintenance case. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial Court during the enquiry in M.C. No.42 of 2019 which shall be considered by the learned trial Court independently in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
8. However, keeping in view of the fact that the matter pertains to maintenance, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole is directed to dispose of M.C. No.42 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
09. With the above observations, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand closed. _________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2026 KKV
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021
Dated 25.02.2026
KKV
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 908/2021 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date
ORDER
OFFICE NOTE
25.02.2026
Dr.VJP,J
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
(vide separate order)
________ Dr.VJP,J KKV