V. Brahmeswara Rao, Vs Smt. C.K. Indira

V. BRAHMESWARA R AO,, SON OF V. SATYANARAYANA, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 32-53, BOMMALA COLONY, KHILLA ROAD, KON D APALLI, KRISHANA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SMT C K INDIRA, D / O. C.K. SATYANARAYANA ACHARI, AGED-36 YEARS. WIFE OF V. BRAHMESWARA RAO, RESIDENT OF HOUSE. NO. 43-223, N.R. PE T A, KURNOOL.

¶14

V VENU SATYA G O PAL KRISHANA, SON OF SMT. C. K . INDIRA, AGED 7 YEARS, M INOR, REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. C .K INDIRA, HOUSE NO. 43-223, N.R.. PETA, KURNOOL.

¶15

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA P RADESH, AMARAVATI, GUNT U R DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying t hat in the circumstances stated i n the affidavit filed in suppor t of the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may be pleased toMem o randum of Grounds of Criminal Revi s ion Case against the Order dated 12.04.2024 passed in CRL.MP.No. 2 3 of 2022 in FCMC.No.11 of 2022 o n the file of Family Court Cum IV Addl. District Judge, Kurnool

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 may be pleased to suspend the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in CRL.MP. No. 23 of 2022 in FCMC. No. 11 of 2022 on the file of Family Court Cum IV Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of above revision petition and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.NAGA RAJU B K

¶25

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 616/2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

No representation on behalf of the petitioner. This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter and decide the issue on merits.

¶31

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to set aside the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No.23 of 2022 in F.C.M.C. No.11 of 2022 on the file of the learned Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor son of the parties.

¶32

A perusal of the record shows that initially, the 1^st respondent herein filed a maintenance petition seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son. Subsequently, she secured employment as an Assistant Professor in G. Pulla Reddy Engineering College, Kurnool, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. She then amended her petition to seek maintenance only for her minor son, who is approximately four years old, and the Family Court allowed the petition to that extent.The affidavits of assets and liabilities reveal that both the petitioner and the 1^st respondent are postgraduates with similar qualifications, each drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs.30,000/-. The minor child is in the custody of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner claims to be unemployed but owns certain properties. Considering the circumstances, and the fact that

¶33

4

¶34

the 1^st respondent is now self-sufficient, the initial claim for her maintenance is withdrawn, seeking the maintenance claim only for the minor child.

¶35

The Court observes that while the 1^st respondent is employed and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, she is self-sufficient and not dependent on the petitioner for her own livelihood. However, the minor child, being four years old, is entirely dependent on both parents for maintenance and upbringing.The Court further notes that all allegations regarding the parties’ conduct, including the petitioner’s employment status and properties, will be fully examined during the main proceedings. At this stage, the Court’s concern is limited to ensuring that the minor child receives reasonable interim maintenance. The interim maintenance order is consistent with legal principles and does not warrant interference in this revision petition.

¶36

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. However, both parties are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned Family Court, during the course of enquiry, the learned trial Judge may take appropriate decision over the matter according to the law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶39

Date:07.03.2026 KKV

¶40

5

¶41

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶42

168