Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/572/2023 of SHAIK KATIJA Vs SHAIK JAFFER on 23 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 572/2023 Between: 1. SHAIK KATIJA, W/O SHAIK JAFFER AND
APHC010301872023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 572/2023
Between:
1. SHAIK KATIJA, W/O SHAIK JAFFER AND D/O JAPHAR, MUSLIM, AGED 33 YEARS, RELATIVES PROTECTION, R/O DOOR NO.31- 30/1, APHMEL ROAD, KONDAPALLI VILLAGE, IBRAHIMPATNAM
MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SHAIK JAFFER, S/O SHAIK JAINULABDEEN, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT
YEARS,
ELECTRICAL
BUSINESS,
R/O
DOOR
NO.242,
SEETHARAMANJANEYAPET, OPPOSITE CHURCH, MANGALAGIRI
TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF AP, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 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 pass an order or judgment for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2023 passed in FCOP.No.109 of 2019 on the file of the XIV Addl. District Judge-Cum-Judge, Additional Family Court at Vijayawada, and allow this Appeal with costs by granting maintenance at Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her maintenance from the date of desertion i.e., from 06.10.2018 or from the date of the petition i.e., from 27.06.2019 respectively and pass such other orders.
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 condone the delay of 35 days in filing the above Revision and be please to pass such other orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RADHAKRISHNA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 572 OF 2023
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 Case is filed by the petitioners under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Challenging the order, dated 03.02.2023 passed in F.C.O.P.No.109 of 2019 on the file of the court of learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court at Vijayawada.
2. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri A.Radhakrishna, learned counsel and learned Public Prosecutor for Home for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is the wife. She filed F.C.O.P.No.109 of 2019 on the file of learned Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada seeking maintenance from her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the learned Judge erroneously dismissed the application only on the ground that the wife has left the matrimonial home voluntarily and her husband did not necked out her. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that there may be several reasons for the petitioner to leave her husband and live separately at her parents house or any other place of her choice due to harassment of her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that after their marriage, the respondent No.1/husband lived with the petitioner happily for three months. Thereafter, he started harassing her. She approached the police and lodged a criminal complaint and matter was referred to the Mandal Legal Services Committee, they could not prosecute her complaint. Thereafter, in the year 2018 she has lodged another case against her husband making allegations for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the said case is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submits that the criminal case is still pending, during pendency of the said petition the learned Judge dismissing the claim of the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable under law. The learned Judge ought to have exercised the jurisdiction in the right perspective and would have granted some amount towards the maintenance of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/husband would submit that there is a clear observation by the learned Judge regarding the petitioner leaving the matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would further submit that the petitioner herein did not even chose to examine her parents to support her contention. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would further submit that nothing has been placed before the Court in proof of income of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 finally prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, this Court is of the view that the learned Family Court-cum- XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada could not examine and appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. There is a material placed before the Court to justify the petitioner to live separately away from her husband when such circumstances are placed before the Court and in addition to that, a criminal case it is alleged against the husband very much earning for consideration before the Court. The learned Family Court Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herself left the matrimonial house is not entitled for the maintenance. In that view, the impugned order brokes interference of this Court in revision.
6. In the light of the aforesaid mentioned premises, the impugned order is set aside. Matter is remanded to the learned Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada for fresh consideration to examine the case after hearing both sides and take a decision afresh within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 24.02.2026 RMR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 572/2023
Dt.24.02.2026
RMR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: Criminal Revision Case No.572 of 2023 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date
ORDER
OFFICE NOTE
05. 24.02.2026
Dr.VJP,J
The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
________ Dr.VJP, J RMR