Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/100/2023 of KOYA SANDEEP Vs GOWRAVANANI SRI LAKSHMI on 24 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 100/2023 Between: 1. KOYA SANDEEP, S/O AROGYAIAH, AGED
APHC010034172023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. KOYA SANDEEP, S/O AROGYAIAH, AGED 34, R/O. H.NO.8-5-150/30, PLOT NO. 61, ROAD NO.4, MALLIKARJUNA NAGAR, OLD
BOWENPALLY, MALKAJGIRI, R.R. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GOWRAVANANI SRI LAKSHMI, W/O. KOYA SANDEEP, D/O
KUMARBABU, AGED 33, ADVOCATE
2. KOYA MAANVITHA SHARON, D/O. KOYA SANDEEP, AGED 4, BEING
MINOR
REP.BY
HER
MOTHER
1ST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF 7-19-20/1, KAKUMANIVARI THOTA, BONGARLABEDU, GUNTUR.
3. THE STATE OF AP, , REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.
...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 set aside the order dated 30- 11.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.65/2022 in F.C.O.P. No. 303/2021 by the Judge Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the order dated 30-11-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.65/2022 in F.P.No. 303/2021 by the Judge Family Court-cum- XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the Criminal petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023
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 dated 30-11-2022
passed
in
Crl.M.P.No.65/2022 in F.C.O.P. No. 303/2021 by the Judge Family Court- cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, pending disposal of the Criminal Rc and pass such other order or Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SAI SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
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 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2022 in FCOP.No.303 of 2021, by granting interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.
2. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V R Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.
3. The petitioner herein is the husband and father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed FCOP.No.303 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking maintenance from the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2022 seeking grant of interim maintenance pending disposal of the main petition. The learned Judge, upon due consideration of the material on record, granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month each to the respondent No.1-wife and the respondent No.2- minor child, vide order dated 30.11.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Judge granting interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month each to the wife and child is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the material available on record and mechanically granted interim maintenance without considering the financial capacity of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the said amount and that the respondents are capable of maintaining themselves.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the order passed by the learned Judge granting interim maintenance is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner, being the husband, is legally bound to maintain the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Judge, after considering the material available on record, rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month each. It is further contended that the respondents have no independent source of income to maintain themselves and therefore the order passed by the learned Judge is valid and sustainable in law.
6. Considering the submissions made and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record as well as the impugned order, it is a well- reasoned one. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Admittedly, the wife and minor daughter are residing separately away from the petitioner. Unless a full-fledged enquiry is conducted, the Court cannot decide as to who is at fault. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Judge awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month each to the wife and minor daughter pending disposal of the main case. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, and therefore does not warrant any interference.
7. In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, as the order relates only to interim maintenance, both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions during the course of the enquiry. In turn, the learned Trial Judge may examine the truth or otherwise of such contentions and appreciate the evidence placed before the Court. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the main FCOP as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2026. UPS
Dt.25.02.2026
UPS