Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1033/2025 of Sajida Sulthana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh 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: 1033/2025 Between: 1. SAJIDA SULTHANA, W/O SRI SHAKEER
APHC010493572025
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: 1033/2025
Between:
1. SAJIDA SULTHANA, W/O SRI SHAKEER PASHA, D/O SRI ABDUL
RAHAMAN KHAN, MUSLIM, AGED 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING
AT
D.NO.39-3-2,
MASJID
STREET,
LABBIPET,
VIJAYAWADA - 520 010, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. AAIRA TASLEEM, D/O SRI SHAKEER PASHA AND SMT. SAJIDA
SULTHANA,
MUSLIM,
AGED
YEARS,
UNDER
MOTHERS
PROTECTION, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
I.E., 1ST PETITIONER HEREIN, D.NO.39-3-2, MASJID STREET, LABBIPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 010, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
2. SHAKEER PASHA, S/O SRI ABDUL RASHEED, MUSLIM, AGED 37
YEARS, OCC TAHSILDAR, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATIA
DISTRICT, RESIDING AT H.NO.12-11-980A, 2ND FLOOR, SANVI
BLUE
CASTLE,
NEAR
KOUSAR
MASJID,
WARASINGUDA,
SECUNDERABAD.
...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 the petitioners prefer the present
Criminal Revision Case against an Order dated 08.07.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No.484 of 2024 in FCOP.No.510 of 2024 on the file of the court of learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, partly allowing the petition by granting interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from 10.06.2024 until the disposal of the main case, while dismissing the 1st petitioner’s claim. The court relied on gift settlement deeds showing properties worth Rs.62 lakhs in the 1st petitioner’s name which was gifted by the 1st petitioner’s father, is illegal, erroneous, and unsustainable in law and fact, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order and seek revision on the grounds detailed below.
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 direct the 2nd respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to each petitioner pending disposal of this revision petition, to alleviate their ongoing financial distress and prevent irreparable hardship and pass such other orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. KALEEMULLA S
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA MURALIDHAR M
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1033 OF 2025
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 438 read with 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Challenging the order, dated 08.07.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No.484 of 2024 in FCOP.No.510 of 2024 on the file of the court of learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada.
2. Heard Sri Kaleemulla S, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for Home and Sri Venkata Muralidhar M, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent/husband. She filed F.C.O.P.No.510 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada seeking maintenance against her husband and also for the sake of maintenance of her child. During pendency of the said case, she also filed Crl.M.P.No.484 of 2024 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Judge after hearing both sides granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter and dismissed the claim of interim maintenance to the 1st petitioner vide order dated 28.07.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred the present revision challenging the sustainability of said order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent herein who is husband has obtained divorce under Muslim Law. Though she is a divorced wife she can claim maintenance but the 1st petitioner suppressed her income before the court. Hence, there are no grounds warranting interference of the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the properties which were gifted by her father to the 1st petitioner are vacant sites and that she is not securing any income from such properties. Whereas, the respondent is working as Tahsildar and getting salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record and the impugned order placed before this court, the learned Principal Family Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada though rightly came to the conclusion that even if the divorce obtained by the husband is valid, the wife can claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but the learned Judge erroneously came to the conclusion that she is not entitled for interim maintenance since she got two properties from her father, without looking into the aspect that the two properties which she got from her father are vacant sites and no income is generated from them. Further, no material is placed before the Trial Court at the relevant point of time that the she is getting any income over such property. In the absence of any such material, the learned Judge would have granted some interim maintenance to the wife also pending disposal of the main matter.
7. In that view, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the financial capacity of both the parties, it is apposite to grant interim maintenance to the 1st petitioner from the respondent.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The order, dated 08.07.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No.484 of 2024 in FCOP.No.510 of 2024 on the file of learned Principal Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada, modified. The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner towards interim maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal of the main petition i.e., F.C.O.P.No.510 of 2024. The maintenance granted to the 2nd petitioner shall remain intact.
Further, the learned Principal Family Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is directed to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Court.
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: 1033/2025
Dt.24.02.2026
RMR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI MAIN CASE NO.: Criminal Revision Case No.1033 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date
ORDER
OFFICE NOTE
09. 24.02.2026
Dr.VJP,J
The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
________ Dr.VJP, J RMR