CRLRC/745/2015 of VASABATTULA VENKATA LAKSHMI, KAKINADA Vs VASABATTULA CHALIVENDRA PHANI, KAKINADA & ANO on 22 December 2025

1. VASABATTULA VE OCC: HOUSE WIF ASHOKA CASTLE G

1. VASABATTULA C VASABATTULA ST JAWAHAR COLON REPRESENTLY ST DUGGIRALAVARI KAKINADA

2. STATE OF AN PROSECUTOR HIG Counsel for the Petition

1. A HARIPRASAD RE Counsel for the Respon

1. G L NAGESWAR R

2. PUBLIC PROSECU

E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEM THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAM AL REVISION CASE NO: 745 OF 2015 ENKATA LAKSHMI, KAKINADA, W/O E C/O.SRI NADELLA PRABHU DAS GIDDI LANE GANDHINAGAR KAKIN AND CHALIVENDRA PHANI KAKINADA TYANARAYAN EMPLOYEE H/NO.8-2 NY ROAD NO.5 JUBILEE HILLS HY TARYING AT FLAT NO.205 BHANU A STREET BEHIND TTD KALYANA DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYD ...RES ner: EDDY ndent(S): RAO UTOR (AP) DESH

MBER MANTA

O.V. CH. PHANI S FLAT NO.D-4 ADA ...PETITIONER ANO, S/O. 2-293/82/14/C-1 YDERABAD - 3 APARTMENTS A MANDAPAM ITS PUBLIC DERABAD SPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following Order :

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.03.2015 passed by learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada in C.R.P.No.135 of 2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present the Petitioner No.1 is the wife of Respondent No.1. Initially, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed praying for maintenance before learned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned jurisdictional Magistrate, after hearing the parties has passed an order of maintenance amount Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs. 10,000/- in favour of minor children. Against which, the husband of the Petitioner preferred a revision before learned Sessions Judge concerned. While passing the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge has denied the maintenance in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that during pendency of the matter, wife got permanent employment in ICDS Kalluru. However, order of maintenance in favour of children was not touched. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the present Petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being the wife, though got permanent employment, but her salary is not sufficient to maintain herself, so she assailed the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that it has been sufficiently proved that the wife has independent income. The income is sufficient to maintain her livelihood. Thus, learned Sessions Judge has rightly turned down the prayer of the Petitioner.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that in dispose of the application for maintenance, both the Courts below had not followed the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajnesh v. Neha1”, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Copurt has set out a guidelines, how the maintenance amount has to be fixed in a case where either parties are on employment.

6. Considering the entire fact, I think it is necessary to remand the matter before learned Magistrate concerned, who shall dispose of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to act in accordance with direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra), after giving an opportunity to file necessary documents of Assets and Liabilities and Affidavits to that effect. Learned Magistrate concerned shall dispose of the application as early as possible, preferably within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of passing of this order.

7. With the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 = (Crl.Appeal No.730 of 2020, dated 04.11.2020)

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J

Date: 23.12.2025

KK