Cheedella Suresh Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CHEEDELLA SURESH BABU, S/O LATE VEERANJANEYULU,AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BUSINESS,R/O D.N0.1-3/4-176A, VADDERIVAH STREET,VIDYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520012,NTR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, ,REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AT AMARAVATI.

¶13

CHEEDELLA NAGA VENKATA KANAKADURGA GUNA SANGEETHA LAKSHMI, W/O SURESH BABU,D/O CHLALUVADI VENKATA GANGA ANJA PURNACHANDRA RAO,AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE,R/O D.NO.4-4-15/8,GRANDHI MADHAVA RAMADEVI NILAYAM,NEAR PERUGUCHETTU CENTRE, BEHIND SIVALAYAM.AGRAHARAM, ELURU - 534001, ELURU DISTRICT

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.PHANI BABU YALAMANCHILI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.SARASWATHI A

¶19

2

¶20

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

3

¶23

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 191 of 2026

¶24

ORDER:-

¶25

The instant Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/respondent seeking to set aside the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in F.C.O.P.No.168 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Family Judge-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

¶26

Heard Sri Y. Phani Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Smt. A. Saraswathi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. The respondent-wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason. The petitioner is engaged in the business of jute and rope. The maintenance granted to the respondent– wife is excessive and exorbitant.

¶28

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the Trial Court has awarded maintenance to the respondent-wife after proper consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the impugned order is wellreasoned. Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court, and the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present revision.

¶29

On perusal of the record, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence on record and with proper perspective, and after

¶30

4

¶31

taking into consideration the necessities of the petitioner’s wife as well as the financial capacity of the husband, who is engaged in work in a jute factory, granted maintenance to the wife.

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge is a wellreasoned order and does not warrant interference by this Court.

¶33