1
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
APEG010000272026
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Present: S. SUJATHA
V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram
Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.01/2026
Between: Dara Anil, S/o.Charles, Hindu, Aged 33 years, D.No.4-217, Lakshmi Narasimha … Revision Petitioner/ Nagar Colony, Dowleswaram. Respondent (Within Dowleswaram Police Station limits)
A N D
Dara Kumari, W/o.Anil, Hindu, Aged 31 years, D.No.3-52, East Gonagudem,
... Respondent/
Rajanagaram Mandal. Petitioner (Within Rajanagaram Police Station limits)
REVISION PREFERRED BY REVISION PETITIONER AGAINST
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM IN
M.C.NO.13/2022, DATED 24.10.2025
Between: Dara Kumari, W/o.Anil, Hindu, Aged 31 years, D.No.3-52, East Gonagudem,
... Petitioner
Rajanagaram Mandal.
A N D
2
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
Dara Anil, S/o.Charles, Hindu, Aged 33 years, D.No.4-217, Lakshmi Narasimha … Respondent Nagar Colony, Dowleswaram.
This Criminal Revision Petition came before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.U.V.B.Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondent; and upon perusing the grounds of revision and other material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1.This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ respondent under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (Section 438 BNSS) to set aside the Order dated 24.10.2025 in MC.No.13/2022 on the file of IV
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.
2.The parties to the Criminal Revision Petition will be hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they arrayed in Maintenance petition
before the Trial Court.
3.The brief facts of the Petition in M.C.No.13/2022 before Trial Court is as follows:
The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 12.06.2020 at Gloria Dei Church,
Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram according to Christian Religious
Rites & Customs in the presence of elders of both sides and their marriage is consummated. At the time of marriage her parents gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry as per the demands made by 3
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
the respondent and his parents; Rs.1,00,000/- spent towards marriage expenses and presented sare saman worth of Rs.1,30,000/-. Soon after the marriage on the influence of his parents and sister the respondent started to beat the petitioner indiscriminately and harassed her with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. The parents of the petitioner put the matter before elders, but there is no change in the attitude of the respondent and his parents. The respondent suspected the character of the petitioner and beat her without any reason. The petitioner came to know that the respondent having illicit intimacy with his co-employee at Delta Multi Specialty Hospital, Rajahmundry. When the petitioner carrying three months pregnancy, the respondent took the petitioner on his scooter, pushed her from the scooter, due to which the petitioner lost her pregnancy and also sustained fracture to her leg. On 12.03.2021 the respondent left the petitioner at her parents house and never pay any visit when the petitioner underwent treatment to her fractured leg. Subsequently mediation was held through Galla Ranga
Rao, where the respondent and his parents undertaken that they will take the petitioner to the matrimonial house immediately after her leg injury is healed. After recovery, inspite of requests made by the petitioner and her family the respondent did not take the petitioner to his fold. As there is no other go she lodged a report at Women Police
Station, Rajamahendravaram and the same is registered as FIR in
Crime No.120/2021 u/s.498A I.P.C. The respondent is working as computer operator and earning Rs.40,000/- per month The respondent is having sufficient means and capacity to provide maintenance to the petitioner, but he intentionally neglected the petitioner and hence she filed this present case seeking maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month.
4
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
4.The Respondent before the Trial Court filed Counter admitting the relationship with the petitioner and denying the averments in the Petition and contended that the marriage expenses were born by both the parties and no reciprocals were taken place as the respondent family are against dowry system. The petitioner used to go to her parents house as she was very much affectionate towards her parents and the respondent used to bring back her to his house. The petitioner used to demand the respondent to provide luxurious life, the respondent expressed his inability, then the petitioner raised petty quarrels with respondent, abused the respondent and his parents and threatened with dire consequences to file false cases against them. The petitioner left the conjugal society on her own accord. The respondent approached the petitioner so many times along with elders for amicable settlement to take back the petitioner but she refused to join the respondent. The respondent further contended that petitioner working as computer operator in GSL Hospital and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Prior to marriage the petitioner worked at Dubai for two years and at Kuwait for two years. The respondent is not liable to pay any maintenance as the petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent.
5.Basing on the rival contentions of both parties, the Trial Court framed the following Point for consideration.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- from the respondent?
6. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner examined herself as
P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P1 i.e., Marriage photographs along with C.D and one Kollam Nagabhushanam, who is third party examined as
P.W.2. The respondent examined as R.W.1 and his father is examined as R.W.2. No documentary evidence filed on his behalf.
5
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
[7.The trial Court after considering the respective pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties to the proceedings, allowed the petition by granting maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner per month.
8.Being aggrieved by the impugned Order of the trial Court in allowing the Maintenance Petition by granting amount of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner per month to the petitioner from the date of petition i.e.
from 04.02.2022, the respondent/Revision Petitioner preferred this
Revision on the following grounds.
(i)The order of the lower court is against law.
(ii)The learned Magistrate committed grave error of law in granting such a huge amount without considering the financial capacity of the petitioner/husband. In fact, the petitioner/husband is only getting Rs.15,000/- per month working as computer operator in a private hospital and later he resigned to his job due to the pressures of the respondent/wife in August 2022 and ever since then he is unemployed. On the contra he does not possess any properties and he did B.Tech long back and that he is in search of a job.
(iii)It is further asserted by the petitioner in the assets and liabilities declaration that he has to support his old and ailing mother, suffering from gangrene to her right leg, which requires Rs.10,000/- per month and that the respondent/wife also studied B.A, B.Ed and working privately.
6
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
(iv)In the above circumstances the learned Magistrate erred in arriving at such quantum of Rs.8,000/- per month when the petitioner used to get only Rs.15,000/- per month and on the other hand he is an unemployed right now. No doubt respondent/wife dit anything, though alleged many things.
(v)Nevertheless, when no interim maintenance is urged by the respondent/wife during pendency of the case, she is not entitled to the maintenance from the date of petition and the learned Magistrate should have ordered maintenance only from the date of order as laid down in 2004(2) ALD Criminal 193 (Supreme court).
(vi)Viewed from any angle the amount awarded is highly excessive and arbitrary and does not stand to the scrutiny of law.
9.Heard arguments of both counsels.
10. Now in deciding the Revision Petition, the Points that arises for determination are as follows.
1.Whether the amount of monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent/wife is appropriate?
2.Whether the respondent/wife is entitled for the amount of monthly maintenance so granted from the date of petition?
3.Whether the order dated 24.10.2025 in M.C.No.13/2022 passed by the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram suffers from any material irregularity or illegality? If so whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?
7
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
POINTS:
11.Upon perusing the material on record, it goes to show that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent performed on 12.06.2020 at Gloria Dei Church, Alcot Gardens, Rajamahendravaram according to Christian Religious Rites & Customs is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that it is arranged marriage and their marriage is consummated. Further, soon after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent at his house Dowleswaram Village. It is also undisputed fact that during their wedlock petitioner conceived pregnancy and the same is miscarried. Coming to the evidence part, the petitioner as
PW.1 reiterated the averments in the petition by her in her chief evidence. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of marriage her parents presented dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of respondent and also spent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses apart from Rs.1,30,000/- towards sare-samans, which is denied by the respondent.
12.On the other hand, the respondent as RW.1, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner left him at her own will to her parent’s house and in turn filed false cases against himself and family members. He used to work in a private hospital as a computer operator and earned an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. However, he resigned from the job in the month of August, 2022 and remained unemployed.
Further, he has no properties in his name and there is no income for him, whereas the petitioner is working women and getting income.
Thereby, he cannot pay any amount to her.
13.In support of the version of petitioner, one third person is examined as PW.2, who also deposed in his chief examination 8
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
evidence parallel to the evidence of PW.1. On the other hand, father of the respondent is examined as RW.2, who deposed that it is the petitioner, who herself went to her parent’s house and did not turn up and in turn got filed DVC, Section 498-A IPC cases against the respondent himself and other family members.
14.On going through the evidence of both parties, it is revealing that the petitioner stayed in the house of respondent for short period only and at present she is not living with the respondent and staying at her parent’s house. The reason assigned by the petitioner for staying so is that when she met with an accident, her pregnancy aborted and fracture to leg. Thereby, she was dropped by the respondent at her parent’s house and thereafter in spite of herself and her parents requesting the respondent to take back her for leading conjugal life, respondent not turned up. To support the said version, the evidence of PW.2 would goes to show that in spite of holding a settlement between the respondent and petitioner in the Church, where he was working as a paster, wherein both families talked about settlement, petitioner was not taken back to the respondent’s house. On the other hand, the respondent has not assigned any reason for petitioner not staying with him though married, except stating that she herself went away. The said version difficult to consider for the reason that without there being any strong reason, no ordinary prudent wife will stay away from her husband at matrimonial home. Moreover, during cross-examination of
RW.1, he categorically stated that he is not ready to take back petitioner to his conjugal fold, even if petitioner joins him, which shows that without any sufficient cause or justifiable reason, the respondent has not allowed the petitioner to join him. He has not taken any steps even 9
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
to restitute the conjugal rights with petitioner. Thereby, it shows that the respondent without any justifiable cause neglected the petitioner and not allowed to join his matrimonial home.
15.Coming to the means of respondent, though he stated that he is not doing any job, keeping idle, but admittedly, he is B-Tech graduate and worked as computer operator at Delta Hospital. Whereas, RW.2, who is father of respondent, in his cross-examination, also stated that he is working as faculty in a private ITI college and getting salary of
Rs.13,000/- per month, which shows that the parents of the respondent, having source of income and not financially dependent on the respondent. There is no record before the Court that the respondent is suffering from physical disability or ill-health. So, it can be said that he is able-bodied and can do work and get amount. Thereby, he is having capacity and sufficient means to provide maintenance to the petitioner, who was neglected by him. Since petitioner being wife of respondent, who was neglected by the respondent and refused to be maintained without any reasonable or justifiable cause, the respondent is having both moral or legal obligation to maintain the petitioner being his wife.
Though there is no documentary proof before the Court that the respondent getting income and even petitioner is not able to prove that as a computer operator, the respondent is getting income of Rs.40,000/- per month apart from owning a building at Lakshmi Narasimha Colony,
Dowleswaram, but the qualification of respondent as a B-Tech graduate and previous working experience goes to show that he can earn considerable amount and out of which he can pay the amount to the petitioner prays maintenance. At the same time, the petitioner is also graduate as per details furnished by her, but no proof is filed by respondent that she is earning amount and having assets deriving 10
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
income. However, considering the said qualification of petitioner, the quantum of maintenance can be considered. Thereby, the amount of
Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance will meet the basic needs of petitioner and the Trial Court is justified in granting such amount to her to be payable by the respondent, towards monthly maintenance.
16.Thus, the Trial Court rightly by appreciating the evidence and applying Law came into right conclusion with cogent reasons with regard to quantum of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner, as such there are no infirmities in appreciating the facts and evidence and there are no reasons to differ with the such finding arrived by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.
17.With regard to the order of payment of monthly maintenance by the respondent to the petitioner from the date of petition, it appears that there are no reasons given by the Trial Court. To appreciate the said aspect, it is apt to extract Section 125 Cr.P.C for better appreciation.
Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
(1)If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain;
1. his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
2. his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
3. his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
4. his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such
magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate
may from time to time direct; 11
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub- Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct; Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
For the purposes of this Chapter:
a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2)Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be…… etc.
The above provision expressly enables the Court to grant maintenance from the date of order or from the date of application.
However, Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be construed with sub-section (6) of
Section 354 Cr.P.C. language and contents of judgments, which reads thus:
“Every order under Section 117 or sub-section (2) of section 138 and every final order made under Section 125, Section 145 or Section 147 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.”
Thereby Section 125 Cr.P.C impliedly requires the Court to consider making the order of maintenance effective from either of two dates having regard to the relevant facts. However, as per the Section 12
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
354(6) of Cr.P.C., the Court should record reasons in support of the order passed by it, in both eventualities.
18.Apart from that this Court lay hands for deciding this point on a decision reported in 2004(2) ALD (Cri) 193 in between Chikkamma @
Parvathamma Vs. Yerriswamy, wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
A.P. held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C makes it clear that order of payment of maintenance should be effective from the date of order and the exception is ordering payment from the date of petition. Since awarding maintenance from the date of petition seems to be an exception to the normal rule recording reasons would be necessary only when Magistrate feels at expedient to order payment of maintenance from the date of petition that should be so can also be seen from the fact that petitioner in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have a right to seek interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings initiated. When petitioners fail to file a petition seeking interim maintenance, they cannot blame the Court for not awarding maintenance from the date of petition.
19.Therefore, in view of the above analogy in the present case on hand also it appears that the petitioner has not filed any petition during pendency of Maintenance Case seeking interim maintenance. Further, the Trial Court also not recorded reason for granting maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition. Thereby, this Court is of the view that ordering payment of monthly maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition is not correct and the same is not inconsonance with
Section 125 Cr.P.C and hence the said order is liable to be set aside and can be said that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance so ordered by the trial Court from the date of its order. Thereby, the order 13
CRP.No.1/2026 MC.No.13/2022
V ADJ COURT, RJVM
of Trial Court in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the petitioner from the date of petition is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for such monthly maintenance from the date of Trial
Court order. Accordingly, Points 2 and 3 are answered.
20.In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed confirming the order of Trial Court in granting the amount of maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month be paid by the Revision
Petitioner/ husband to the respondent/wife, however, not from the date of maintenance petition, but from the date of order of maintenance
dated 24.10.2025.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me,
this the 18th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- S.Sujatha
V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
Sd/- S.Sujatha
V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram
Copy to:
The IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.