Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/221/2023 of TANEERU RAVI BABU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 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: 221/2023 Between: 1. TANEERU RAVI BABU, S/O.
APHC010136432023
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. TANEERU RAVI BABU, S/O. RAMANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. BOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, MARTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
A.P.
HIGH
COURT,
AMARAVATHI.
GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
2. TANEERU MADHURI, W/O. RAVI BABU, D/O. KUNCHAM SIVA
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 5-64-33, 1/19TH
LINE, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. TANEERU SHANMUKHA PRIYA, D/O. RAVI BABU, AGED ABOUT 2
YEARS, MINOR, R/ O. D. NO. 5-64-33, 1/19TH LINE, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP. BY HER MOTHER I.E., 2ND
RESPONDENT T. MADHURI
...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 submit the present Revision Case questioning the order dated 11.01.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 340 of 2022 in F.C.O.P, No. 73 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur District at Guntur
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 Stay of all further proceedings in FCOP No. 73 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Guntur District at Guntur, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SUBRAHMANYAM KOTARI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 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 11.01.2023 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 340 of 2022 in F.C.O.P. No. 73 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Guntur District at Guntur.
2. None represented on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner called absent. Heard Mrs. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. Since this is a revision case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matter on merits. This Court has perused the material placed on record as well as the impugned order.
4. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2/wife filed FCOP No.73 of 2019 on the file of the learned Family Court, Guntur seeking maintenance. Wherein, she filed Crl.M.P.No.340 of 2022 seeking interim maintenance. Learned Trial Judge has awarded Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and minor child i.e., the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein vide order dated 11.01.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband/petitioner herein preferred the present revision challenging the same.
5. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is a well-reasoned one. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Admittedly, the wife, along with the minor child, is residing separately away from the husband. Unless a full-fledged enquiry is conducted, the Court cannot decide as to who is at fault. As per the contention of the wife, the petitioner herein/husband is employed and drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and that he also owns certain immovable properties. However, no document has been placed before the Court in this regard. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Judge awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and the minor child, i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in revision. Accordingly, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the Trial Court during the course of enquiry. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above said observations.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 25.02.2026. UPS
Dt.25.02.2026
UPS