Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/914/2014 of VELUPARTHI SURYA PRABHAKAR RAO Vs VELUPATHI PARVATHI & ANOTHER on 27 November 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 914/2014 Between: 1. VELUPARTHI SURYA PRABHAKAR
APHC010780142014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
Between:
1. VELUPARTHI SURYA PRABHAKAR RAO, S/O. RAMDAS, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCE: SECTION SUPERINTENDENT, TRAFFIC ACCOUNTS, OFFICE OF F.A. AND C.A.O., GARDEN REACH, S.E. RAILWAY, CALCUTTA, W.B. STATE.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. VELUPATHI PARVATHI ANOTHER, W/O SURYA PRABHALAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, HINDU, OCC: WORKING IN PRIVATE
INSTITUTION,
RAJIVNAGAR
COLONY,
VIZIANAGARAM,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF A P, REP, BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD.
...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 allow the Crl.R.C and set aside the order dt.18.03.2014 passed in Crl.RP.No.32 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of SC's and ST's (POA) Act cum Addl. District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram.
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/suspend the operation of the order dt.18.03.2014 passed in Crl.RP.No.32 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of SC's and ST's (POA) Act cum Addl. District and Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, dt.18.03.2014.
IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRLRCMP 3609 OF 2017
Petition under Section 151 C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent S.E Railway authorities herein not to disburse the retirement benefits of the petitioner pending disposal of the present Crl.R.C.No.
914 of 2014, and to pass
Petition under Section 151 C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed 3rd Respondent as 3rd Respondent in the above Revision Case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G SAI NARAYANA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
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.
O R D E R:
Instant Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging an Order dated 18.03.2014 passed in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
1. It appears that the parties are litigating regarding maintenance matter before the Courts below. Jurisdictional Magistrate i.e., Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram in deciding an application under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for enhancement of maintenance amount of Respondent No.1 from Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred) to Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand), has turn down the prayer, against which Respondent No.1 approached the Hon’ble Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.32 of 2013. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, has passed the impugned Order, thereby directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month to the 1st Respondent, since the date of filing of the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.,. Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the litigation between the parties is long pending. Initially, there was an order of Maintenance granted in favour of Respondent No.1 and her daughter. However, the daughter became major and was married. The Family Court in a proceeding also directed the Petitioner to grant expenses of marriage which was duly complied, by the Petitioner. He submits that the present Petitioner is a retired person, the Order of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) is exorbitant, so, the Order required to be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, has passed the Order considering all aspects and pending litigation between the parties. The learned Sessions Judge has also passed the reason why the maintenance should be not less than Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand). At this juncture, this impugned order cannot be set aside.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, considering the entire aspect, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge concerned has opined at paragraph No.21 of the impugned Order regarding the reasons why the maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) from Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred). Admittedly, the maintenance amount of Rs.400/- (Rupees found hundred) was very meager one. Moreover, the amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) also not so high. However, the petitioner is a retired employee.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it appears to me that the Order of maintenance passed by the Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, is commensurate to the income/pension of the petitioner. Accordingly, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. Under the above observation, the instant Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as devoid of merits. Any order of stay or suspension Order passed by this Court during the pendency of the instant Criminal Revision Case is hereby vacated. The petitioner is directed to pay the maintenance and arrears of thereof at the rate of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C.,. Arrears of maintenance amount should be paid within six (6) months, in equal monthly installments. Accordingly, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated 28.11.2025 KS1
DATED:28.11.2025.
W KS1