Dismissed¶44

Ambati Kanaka Raju, West Godavari Dt., v. the State of Ap., Rep Pp and 3 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2026CRLRC/2918/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Section 397/401 CrPC; criminal revision by husband against maintenance award to wife and two minor children; plea of desertion/illicit intimacy by wife rejected; petitioner unrepresented on three listings; revision dismissed, no costs; Family Court-cum-VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru; Crl.R.C.No.2918 of 2017; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi.

What did the court decide?

This Court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, found no grounds to interfere with the Trial Court's order in M.C.No.4 of 2013; accordingly the Criminal Revision Case was dismissed with no costs, and pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. ¶44

Ambati Kanaka Raju, West Godavari Dt., Vs the… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010864322017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3368]

¶6

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

¶7

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2918/2017

¶10

Between:

¶11

AMBATI KANAKA RAJU, WEST GODAVARI DT.,, S/O VAYYARI. R/O MILTARY MADHAVARAM, TADEPALLIPDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. A.P.

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP REP PP AND 3 OTRS, REP. BY,THROUGH PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.

¶15

SMT AMBATI SELVANI, W/O KANAKA RAJU, R/O FILLHOUSEPET, EASTEREN STRI-ET_ D.NO. 7C-10/4-212, 9TH DIVISION, ELURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶16

ARNBATI KEERTHI, S/O KANAKA RAJU, LKG STUDENT, AGED 9 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THE 2ND RESPODENT THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN)

¶17

ARNBATI SANNI, D/O KANAKA RAJU, AGED 5 YEARS, (RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS, REP. BY THE 2ND RESPODENT THEIR MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN)

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

BVLNC,J

¶20

¶21

Crl.R.C.No.2918 of 2017

¶22

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toto summon the record of the case to pursue the same and set aside the orders dated 31-01-2017 in M.C.No. 4/ 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court cum Vllth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Eluru and allow the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.S SURENDRA KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA

¶27

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶28

BVLNC,J

¶29

¶30

Crl.R.C.No.2918 of 2017

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶32

The Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2017 in M.C.No.4 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family court – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

¶33

No representation for the petitioner on 06.11.2025, 19.01.2026 and today also.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4/ wife and children and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State.

¶35

The respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein filed M.C.No.4 of 2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court claiming maintenance on the ground that the revision petitioner neglected to maintain his wife and children. Learned Trial Court on considering the entire evidence on record and other material allowed the petition and awarded maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein/ wife and Rs.1,000/- each to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein/ minor children.

¶36

As per the record, the contention of the revision petitioner is that marriage was solemnized between revision petitioner and respondent – wife in the year 20.02.2003 at Madhavaram Village. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. While so, the revision petitioner made allegations against the wife that she had some illicit

¶37

BVLNC,J

¶38

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.2918 of 2017

¶40

intimacy with others and that she deserted him and he did not neglect her.

¶41

Admittedly, the respondent-children are in the custody of the wife. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, found that the contention of the revision petitioner that the wife neglected him has not been proved. On the other hand, the evidence on record shows that the revision petitioner neglected them and failed to provide any maintenance, and that the wife is unable to maintain herself.

¶42

Considering the circumstances regarding income of the revision petitioner/ husband, the learned Trial Court allowed the petition granting maintenance to the wife and children as stated above.

¶43