Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Madicherla Venkata Satyanarayana vs Madicherla Rajeswari on 6 March, 2026
APHC010612752025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1275/2025
Between:
1. MADICHERLA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, S/O KANAKA RAJU, AGED
48 YEARS,OCC FORMERLY SHARE BROKER PRESENTLY
UNEMPLOYED DUE TOCHRONIC ILLNESS, R/O D.NO. 1/594/3, RTC
COLONY, PAMARRUROAD, GUDIVADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 521 301
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MADICHERLA RAJESWARI, W/O VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,AGED 42
YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.2-165, UNGUTURUVILLAGE,
KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MADICHERLA YATHVIKA, D/O VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, AGED 10
YEARS,REP. BY MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN,R/O D.NO.2-165,
UNGUTURUVILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PP., HIGH COURT
OFAP., NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...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 set-aside the order dated 11-05-2025 passed in
CrI.M.P.No.750 of 2024 IN F.C.O.P.No.766 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble
Principal Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, at Vijayawada in the interest of
justice
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 dated 11-05-2025
passed in CrI.M.P.No.750 of 2024 IN F.C.O.P.No.766 of 2024 on the file of the
Hon'ble Principal Family Court-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, at Vijayawada and
pass
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 May be
pleased to vacate the stay granted by order dated 17.11.2025 in IA No.1 of 2025 in
CrI.R.C. No.1275 of 2025, as the conditions imposed therein have not been
complied with by the Revision Petitioner, and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MARADA GOVARDHAN VARMA
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking to set aside the Order dated 11.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.750 of 2024 in FCOP No.766 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Judge, Principal Family Court-cum- IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the material on record are that:
i) the Petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein are husband and wife respectively and their marriage took place on 11.02.2007 as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.1 gave cash of Rs.10,00,000/- towards dowry and also presented gold ornaments of worth Rs.1,00,000/- , Adapaduchu lanchanams apart from 'sare' worth of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Her parents incurred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. During their wedlock, they blessed with respondent No.2/baby girl. After the marriage, the in-laws of respondent No.1 used to harass her for bringing additional dowry and she also stated that her in-laws detained her in a room without providing food and demanded her to sell her property and give money to them. It came to the notice of respondent No.1 that Petitioner had an illegal relationship with other ladies. It is alleged that the petitioner herein was infected with HIV and through him, respondent No.1/wife was also infected to HIV. They shifted the family to Gudivada.
ii) On the pretext that respondent No.1/wife was infected to HIV, respondent 1 and 2 were not allowed in the house and even food also not 3 provided to them. Due to unbearable harassment, on 27.07.2021, she came to her parents house at Unguturu.She lodged a case on 19.02.2024, which was registered as a case in Crime No.47 of 2024 of Unguturu Police Station for the offence under Section 498-A IPC against the Petitioner and his family members. It is stated that at the time of marriage, the petitioner/husband was working as a Zonal Manager in 'Karvy' and due to his health issues, he resigned to the said job.
iii) Thereafter, he is doing share brokerage business and was getting an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Since the respondent No.1 has no source of income to maintain herself and the daughter/Respondent No.2, respondent No.1 on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughter, filed FCOP No.766 of 2024 seeking for a direction to petitioner/husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to her and Rs.50,000/- to the daughter for their food, clothing, etc.,
iv) In the said FCOP, respondent No.1/wife filed Crl.M.P.No.750 of 2024 ´under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to herself and Rs.25,000/- to the daughter.
v) In the above Crl.M.P.No.750 of 2024, petitioner herein filed counter and admitted the relationship between him and respondent No.1 as husband and wife and respondent No.2 is their daughter. He denied presentation of dowry. He made several allegations against the respondent No.1.
vi) The learned Judge, Family Court having heard both the parties and considering the material on record, allowed Crl.M.P.No.750 of 2024 by way of Order dated 11.05.2025 and granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- to the respondent No.2/daughter from the date of 4 petition i.e, from April, 2024 and also directed the petitioner /husband to pay the said maintenance amount on or before 5th of every month. He was also directed to clear the dues upto April 2025 within three months from the date of the said order.
vii) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/husband filed the present criminal revision case.
3. Heard Sri Balu Anil Kumar Palla, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri M.Govardhan Varma, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State. Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the order impugned is illegal and improper. Learned counsel would submit that petitioner is a HIV patient, he is not any job and he is completely dependent on his parents and that the petitioner filed the hospital records in the Trial Court in proof thereof. Learned counsel would submit that the respondent No.1 did not filed a single paper in proof that the petitioner/ husband is doing business. Learned Family Judge without considering the material on record granted interim maintenance with retrospective effect from April, 20204. It is the respondent No.1 who got sufficient means, as she owned landed property which yields income.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the learned Family Judge, after considering the facts of the case and the financial status of the petitioner, rightly granted interim maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2 and that the order impugned does not warrant any interference.
5
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while supporting the version of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.
7. Considering the submissions made, cogently, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 in one voice admitted their marriage and the paternity of respondent No.2. Further, both were affected to HIV, who affected first is not known to each other. The averment of the respondent No.1 is that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for bringing additional dowry and for other reasons and she was also insulted and beat by her husband and in-laws. She lodged a criminal case which was registered for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
8. Be that as it may, the respondent No.1 filed the present FCOP seeking maintenance from to her and to the daughter and in that FCOP, she filed a petition for interim maintenance.There is no proof filed by petitioner/husband that respondent No.1 got income from the lands owned by her. Admittedly, she is also suffering with HIV for which she has to get medical treatment. As per the material on record, the respondent No.2/daughter is a minor and she also to be maintained by her mother for the daily needs. Considering all the above facts, the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.2,500/- to respondent No.2/daughter is granted by the learned Family Judge by way of the order impugned.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 brought to the notice of this Court that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by Order dated 17.11.2025 while admitting the Criminal Revision Case, stayed the order impugned subject to the 6 condition that the Petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month to the respondent No.2 and Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1 /wife every month towards the monthly maintenance. Additionally, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arrears amount if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner failed to comply with the said order and even single pie is paid till date to the respondents.
10. As can be seen from the order impugned, in the absence of adducing any evidence by the parties, the learned Family Judge by relying on the pleadings and oral submissions, granted interim maintenance.
11. In that view, without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Learned Judge Principal Family Court, Vijayawada is directed to dispose of the main FCOP No.766 of 2024 itself as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court, without granting any adjournments in a casual manner on mere asking, without being influenced by the observations if any made in this Order. It is made clear that in case, petitioner/husband has complied with the interim order passed by this Court on 17.11.2025, petitioner shall continue to pay the maintenance amounts as ordered by this Court. In case, petitioner failed to comply with the said order, he shall immediately comply with the said order.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 06.03.2026 Mjl/* 7 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1275 of 2025 06.03.2026 Mjl/*