Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gonji Suresh vs Bandila Neelima Alias Gonji Neelima on 11 March, 2026
1
APHC010127002026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 283/2026
Between:
1. GONJI SURESH, S/O. G. POLAIAH,AGED 38 YEARS, OCC
BUSINESS,R/O. NCR NAGAR, KOTA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. BANDILA NEELIMA ALIAS GONJI NEELIMA, W/O. GONJI SURESH,
AGED 38 YEARS,R/O. D.NO. 12-3/2, KB LAYOUT, MEAR
PADMAVATHI PARK,SRUTHI APARTMENTS, TIRUPATI TOWN AND
URBAN MANDALTIRUPATI DISTRICT.
2. GONJI REVANSH RAM ROHAN, S/O. GONJI SURESH,
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN I.E.,
THE 1RESPONDENT HEREIN.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 the above named petitioner begs to
present this Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Revision Case against the
order dt.18.12.2025 passed in CrI.M.P.No. 223 of 2025 in FCOP No.05 of
2025 on the file of the Family Court -Cum- V Additional District Judge,
Tirupati, for the following among other
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 stay of all further proceedings against the order dt. 18.12.2025
passed in CrI.M.P.No. 223 of 2025 in FCOP No. 05/2025 on the file of the
Judge: Family Court -Cum- V Additional District Judge, Tirupati and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2.
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 283/2026
ORDER:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 18.12.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.223 of 2025 in F.C.O.P. No.05 of 2025 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati.
2. Heard Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who takes notice on behalf of the State.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was performed on 10.08.2017 at Reddy Bhavana Kalyana Mandapam, MCR Colony, Kota, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. Out of the said wedlock, the 2nd respondent (minor son) was born on 20.07.2018, and he is presently under the care and custody of the 1st respondent. It is stated that due to matrimonial disputes, both the petitioner and the 1st respondent have been living separately. The petitioner filed a divorce petition, which is presently pending. Meanwhile, the respondents filed F.C.O.P. No.05 of 2025 seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month. The learned Family Court, after considering the material placed on record, observed that the 1st respondent is a graduate and working as a Lab Technician on contract basis at SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, earning about Rs.24,500/- per month. The Court below also noted that the petitioner is paying half of the school expenses of the minor child for the academic year 2025-2026 based on the receipts filed. Taking the above 4 aspects into consideration, the learned Family Court denied maintenance to the wife, holding that she is capable of maintaining herself, but directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child (2nd respondent) from the date of petition till disposal of the main F.C.O.P. No.05 of 2025. The petitioner was further directed to pay the same on or before the 5th day of every succeeding month, and also to clear the arrears and half of the school fee of the minor child for the year 2025 within one month. The remaining claim of the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case contending, inter alia, that the order passed by the learned Family Court is illegal, improper, and incorrect. It is contended that the learned Judge failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case while granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor child under Section 144(1) of BNSS.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent left the company of the petitioner voluntarily without any valid reason, taking the minor child along with her, and refused to rejoin the petitioner despite his willingness to take them back. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the 1st respondent made contradictory statements regarding her income and employment details in her affidavit filed before the trial Court. The petitioner further submits that he is working as a gym trainer at Vidyanagar, Kota, earning about Rs.10,000/- per month, and his aged parents are also dependent on him. Therefore, the direction to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance is beyond his financial capacity.
5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
5
6. Considering the submissions made by both sides and a fair look at the material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance only to the minor child at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month, while denying maintenance to the wife on the ground that she is capable of maintaining herself. It is to be noted that the impugned order pertains only to interim maintenance, and the main matter in F.C.O.P. No.05 of 2025 is still pending adjudication. At this stage, no oral or documentary evidence has been placed before this Court for detailed consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order at this juncture, and the issues raised by the petitioner can be appropriately decided during the trial.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the trial Court during the course of enquiry. The learned trial Judge shall consider the same while appreciating the evidence and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The learned Family Court is directed to dispose of F.C.O.P. No.05 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has to clear the arrears of maintenance, and it may be difficult for him to pay the entire arrears within one month. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of six (6) months in equal monthly installments. It is made clear that the payment of arrears of interim maintenance shall be subject to the final outcome of the main F.C.O.P. and the final maintenance, if any, to be determined by the trial Court.
6
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 11.03.2026.
KKV 7 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO:283 /2026 Dt.11.03.2026 KKV