Dismissed¶38

Mohammed Allah baksh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Jan 2026CRLRC/56/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, Criminal Revision Case No. 56 of 2026 (decided 21.01.2026), Dr Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa. Maintenance order of Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur in Crl.MP.No.185/2025 in F.C.O.P.No.564/2024 upheld; revision by husband dismissed. Statutes: Sections 397, 401 CrPC; Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS 2023; Section 151 CPC (stay petition IA No.1 of 2026). Keywords: maintenance, Family Court Guntur, criminal revision, BNSS, CrPC, arrears of maintenance, severe health issues, no interference.

What did the court decide?

The trial Court's allowance of the maintenance petition, subject to payment of arrears of maintenance within three months, is just and proper. ¶35

Mohammed Allah baksh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010025092026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 56/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHAMMED ALLAH BAKSH, S/O. GHOUSE,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,OCC. NO AVOCATION,R/O. D.NO. 18-19-114, BARA IMAM PANJA STREET,GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

SHAIK NIKKATH JAHAN, W/O. MOHAMMAD ALLABAKSH,SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE. AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 70-6-1177, 1 LINE,BAVAJI NAGAR GUNTUR TOWN.

¶14

MOHAMMAD YAASIR AHMAD, S/O. MOHAMMAD ALLABAKSH,AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 70-6-1177, 1 LINE,BAVAJI NAGAR,GUNTUR TOWN.REP. BY HER MOTHER 2 RESPONDENT AS GUARDIAN, NEXT FRIEND

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC 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 revision by setting aside the Docket order passed CRL MP NO: 185/2025 in FCOP. No. 564 of 2024 dated 17-11-2025 on the file of Family Court Judge at Guntur.

¶17

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed in CRL MP NO: 185 of 2025 in FCOP. No. 564 of 2024 dated 17-11-2025 on the file of Learned Family Court Judge at Guntur and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.ABDUL HAMEED BAIG MOHAMAAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶27

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 56 of 2026

¶28

Order:

¶29

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C./ Sections 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’),, has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 17.11.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.185/2025 in F.C.O.P.No.564/2024 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur.

¶30

Heard Sri Mohammad Abdul, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The maintenance amount granted by the trail Court is irrational. The respondent voluntarily withdrawn from the petitioner and took away all her belongings with the help of police. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent/wife left the matrimonial home with sufficient cause. Hence, prays to set aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2025.

¶32

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision and prays to pass appropriate orders.

¶33

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the 2^nd petitioner was granted maintenance since it is alleged that the 2^nd petitioner is suffering from

¶34

¶35

severe health issues and the said amount of maintenance is necessary. It is further observed that the petitioner herein is not disputing his income as alleged by the respondent/1^st petitioner and the said petition was allowed subject to payment of arrears of maintenance within three (3) months, which, in the opinion of this Court is just and proper. Hence, this Court is not inclined

¶36

to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court and in that

¶37

view, this revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

¶39

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶40

stand closed.

¶41

______________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA