Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1266/2024 of VADDEMANU PEDDA ANJANEYULU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 23 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL Between: 1. VADDEMANU PEDDA ANJANEYULU, S/O. BALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36-YRS, HINDU, OCC
APHC010461542024
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY,THE T
TWO T
THE HONOURABLE DR
CRIMINAL
Between:
1. VADDEMANU PEDDA
36-YRS, HINDU,
DEHARADUN,
R
MOHIDDEENPURAM
MANDALAM, ONGOL
1. THE STATE OF A
PROSECUTOR, H
AMARAVATHI, GUNT
2. VADDEMANU RENU
ABOUT 30-YRS,
SWADHAARA GRUH
BHAGYA NAGAR, ON
3. VADDEMANU INDRA
ABOUT 11-YRS, R/O
BOARD COLONY, P
PRAKASAM DISTRIC
4. VADDEMANU HARS
AGED ABOUT 04-YR
HOUSING BOARD
ONGOLE, PRAKASAM
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUAR
THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
R JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PR
L REVISION CASE NO: 1266/2024
A ANJANEYULU, S/O. BALAIAH, AGE
OCC- ARMY CANTINE, CLEMENT
R/O.
D.NO.
12-53,
BC
COLONY
VILLAGE,
BOGOLU,
ARDH
LE, PRAKSAM DISTRICT
...PE
AND
ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
IGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE
TUR DISTRICT.
UKA DEVI, W/O. PEDA ANJANEYUL
HINDU, OCC- HOUSEWIFE, R/O. M
HA, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, PAR
NGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
ANI DEVI, D/O. PEDDA ANJANEYUL
O. MIG N.161, SWADHAARA GRUHA,
PARK ROAD, BHAGYA NAGAR,
CT.
SHA VARDHAN, S/O. PEDDA ANJA
RS, R/O. MIG N.161, SWADHAARA
COLONY, PARK ROAD, BHAGYA
M DISTRICT. ..
Y
RATAPA
ED ABOUT
T TOWN,
Y,
NEAR-
HAVEEDU
TITIONER
S PUBLIC
ESH, AT
LU, AGED
IG N.161,
RK ROAD,
LU, AGED
HOUSING
ONGOLE,
ANEYULU,
A GRUHA,
NAGAR,
5. GUVVA NAGA KASAIAH, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT
58-YRS, R/O. D.NO. 12-53, NEAR-MOHIDDEENPURAM VILLAGE, BOGOLU, ARDHAVEEDU MANDALAM, ONGOLE, PRAKSAM
DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by the Judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed in M.C. No. 43/2021 on the file of IInd Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ongole.
IA NO: 1 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 leased to condone the delay of 23 days in re presenting the criminal petition 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 pleased to condone the delay 788 days in filing the present criminal revision etition and pass IA NO: 3 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 leased to grant stay to the petitioner to prefer the appeal against the order passed in M.C. No.43/2021 dated. 12.05.2022 on the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Ongole and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.RAJESH KUMAR B
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.ALLA TARUN KUMAR
2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1266/2024
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:
The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to set aside the Order dated 12.05.2022 passed in M.C.No.43/2021 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar B, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alla Tarun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mrs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
3. The petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate erred in passing an ex-parte order directing payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent No.2 and Rs.5,000/- per month each towards maintenance of respondent Nos.3 and 4, without properly considering the petitioner’s salary and financial capacity. It is further contended that respondent No.2 deserted the petitioner, that she allegedly committed adultery, and that the petitioner had already obtained a decree of divorce in H.M.O.P. No.19/2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapuram. The petitioner also asserts that respondent No.2 is capable of maintaining herself and that the trial Court failed to consider the absence of documentary evidence in support of the claim for maintenance.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is well reasoned and warrants no interference in revision.
5. Considering the submissions and a fair look at the material available on record and the impugned order. The learned Magistrate, upon considering the pleadings and evidence placed before the Court, found that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were unable to maintain themselves and that the petitioner, being employed and drawing salary, has sufficient means to provide maintenance. The trial Court, having recorded reasons for granting maintenance, exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law.
6. It is pertinent to note that the order impugned is an ex-parte order. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, the appropriate course open to him, to approach the trial Court by filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order. The contentions raised by the petitioner relating to alleged desertion, adultery, earning capacity of respondent No.2, quantum of maintenance, and subsequent events are essentially disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in revisional jurisdiction without proper evidence. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Magistrate warranting interference by this Court.
7. In view of the above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order dated 12.05.2022 passed in M.C. No.43/2021 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies by filing petition before the competent Court in accordance with law.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.02.2026. KKV
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1266/2024
Dt.24.02.2026
KKV