Dismissed¶59

Dudde Trinadha Rao, v. Dudde Bullammai and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Jul 2025CRLRC/358/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance of aged mother by son; son's bounden duty to maintain parent; Crl.R.C. No.358 of 2010; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao; Sections 397, 401 and 482 Cr.P.C.; Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry; M.C.No.85 of 2008; Rs.6,000 per month maintenance; revision dismissed; no interference with Trial Court findings; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; revision dismissed with no order as to costs, leaving the Family Court maintenance order intact, and pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶59

Dudde Trinadha Rao, Vs Dudde Bullammai and 3 Others — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010141722010

¶2

BBS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 358 OF 2010 Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the Common Order dated 03.12.2009 passed in MC.No.85 of^{2008onthefileof} Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dudde Trinadha Rao, S/o. Late Veerraju, Hindu, Contractor, Aged 55 years, R/o. D.No. 22-1-29, Ada Sadhuvula Matham, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry-533105, East Godavari^District.

¶10

...Petitioner/1®* Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Dudde Bullammai, W/o. Late Veerraju, Hindu, Old Lady, 67 Years, R/o. 23-16-54, Haripuram, At Present residing at C/o. Thota Bullemma, D.No. 23-15-32, Subhashnagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari^District.

¶13

Dudde Appa Rao @ Kondala Rao, S/o. Late Veerraju, Hindu, Labour Contractor, aged 52 years, R/o. D.No. 22-1-29, Ada Sadhuvula Matham, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundy -533105, East Godavari District [Not necessary party]

¶14

Dudde Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Late Veerraju, Hindu, Workshop, R/o. D.No. 20-5-1, Opp: Padmasai Apartments, Sriramnagar, Rajahmundry533 105, East Godavari District.[Not necessary party]

¶15

L'f^

¶16

The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad

¶17

...Respondents/Petitioner/Respondents No. 2 & 3

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2010 (CRLRCMP 531 OF 2010)

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying that^{inthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of^{theorderofMaintenance} dated 03.12.2009 granted by the court of the Judge, Family Court-cumAdditional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, in M.C.No.101 of 2008.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Rajesh Babu

¶21

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri K.Venkatesh

¶22

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: --

¶23

Counsel for Respondent No.4: Public Prosecutor

¶24

The Court made the following Order:

¶25

[3521]

¶26

APHC010141722010

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

¶30

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶33

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 358/2010

¶34

Between:

¶35

DUDDE TRINADHA RAO,, S/0. LATE VEERRAJU, CONTRACTOR,^R/0. D.NO. 22-1-29, ADA SADHUVULA MATHAM, VEERABHADRAPURAM,

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

1.DUDDE BULLAMMAI AND 3 OTHERS, W/0. LATE VEERRAJU,^R/0. 23-16-54, HARIPURAM, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT C/0. THOTA BULLEMMA, D.NO. 23-15-32, SUBHASHNAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY,

¶39

2.DUDDE APPA RAO KONDALA RAO, S/O.LATEVEERRAJU,LABOUR CONTRACTOR, R/OP. D.NO. 22-1-29, ADA SADHUVULA MATHAM, VEERABHADRAPURAM, RAJAHMUNDRHY -533105,

¶40

DUDDE VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0. LATE VEERRAJU, WORKSHOP, R/0. D.NO. 20-5-1, OPP PADMASAI APARTMENTS, SRIRAMNAGAR, RAJAHMUNDRY-533 105,

¶41

4.THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P.,HYDERABAD

¶42

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶44

P RAJESH BABU

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶46

1.MADHAVI PUNNA (LEGAL aid COUNSEL) 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶47

Dr.YLRj ^ Crl.R.C.No.358of201C ^ Dated 07.07.2025 ^

¶48

The Court made the following:

¶49

order

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned legal aid counsel and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶51

2- The Criminal Revision Case has been Preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order dated 26.11.2009 i in M.C.No.SS of 2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court-Cum -Additional District Court, Rajahmundry, granting Rs.6,000/per month as maintenance to respondent No. 1/mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶52

3- The mother filed the maintenance case at the tag end of her life, that is, when she was beyond the age of sexagenarian. The learned 3udge, Family Court granted maintenance after examining the mother as P.W.1 and other relatives as P.Ws.2 and 3. The petitioner herein as respondent No. 1, marked Exs.P1 to 11 and Ex.R-1.

¶53

The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute. The position of the petitioner vis-a-vis his avocation as

¶54

¶55

Dr. YLR, J Crl.R,C.No.358 of 2010 Dated 07.07.2025

¶56

contractor is sufficient to maintain his mother, who is at the fag end of her life. The contentions raised by the petitioner^{beforethelearnedTrial} Court were all negated.

¶57

On careful analysis of the entire evidence, the learned^TrialCourt granted maintenance to respondent No. 1/mother, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner, being the son of respondent No.1, to maintain her. There are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case^isliableto

¶58

be dismissed.

¶59