(Prayer: Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Criminal Revision Case aggrieved by the Order dated 20.01.2026 in F.C.O.P (MC) No. 473 of 2022, on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge cum Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada; in allowing the Maintenance petition filed by the Respondent/wife)

1. The instant Criminal Revision Case under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 has been filed by the Petitioner / husband seeking to set aside the Order dated 20.01.2026 passed in F.C.O.P(MC).No.473 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Court at Vijayawada.

2. Heard Sri M.V.V.R.Satanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / husband and Sri A.Purushotham, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / wife. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is in attendance.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Husband strenuously contends that the respondent/wife is a Government employee drawing a considerable salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. It is submitted that, on the other hand, the petitioner has no sufficient source of income to comply with the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court passed the order mechanically, without properly considering the financial status and earning capacity of the respondent/wife. He further submits that the petitioner's mother is dependent upon him and that he does not have a permanent job enabling him to pay the maintenance awarded to the respondent. Therefore, he prays that the present revision be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the petitioner, being an Assistant Professor in an Engineering College, has sufficient income to maintain the respondent. It is further submitted that the Trial Court, upon elaborate consideration of the material placed on record, rightly awarded maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.15,000/-per month. As such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, and therefore, the present revision is devoid of merit.

5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and has perused the material available on record. Upon such consideration, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge, after taking into account the income and legal obligation of the petitioner/husband to maintain his wife and children, the inability of Respondent Nos.1 to 4, namely the wife and children, to maintain themselves and meet their day-to-day necessities, and upon proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/-per month each to the children.

6. Now coming to the entitlement of respondent/wife to claim maintenance from the petitioner/husband, it is pertinent to note the categorical admission made by the respondent herein, examined as P.W.1, before the Trial Court, wherein she stated as follows: “At present I am doing a job at Pedapulipaka as an Engineering Assistant. At the time of filing of this case, I was working at Veeranki as an Engineering Assistant on a probationary basis, i.e., on a temporary basis. The witness is confronted with the document and the same is admitted by the witness. Ex.R.1 is the copy of my appointment letter.” In view of the aforesaid admission, it is abundantly clear that the respondent is a Government employee and, even as on the date of filing of the petition, was earning a considerable salary as an Engineering Assistant in the Sachivalayam at Veeranki. On the other hand, it is the specific testimony of the petitioner/husband, examined as R.W.1, before the Trial Court that he was receiving a stipend of Rs.15,000/- during his tenure as a full-time Research Scholar. It was also brought on record that, according to information available on Google, his occupation was shown as Associate Professor at Vignan Institute of Technology, Visakhapatnam. He further deposed that he is willing and ready to take the respondent back to the matrimonial home and that his mother is dependent upon him for her maintenance.

7. The statutory language of Section 125 Cr.P.C. clearly postulates that maintenance may be awarded where a person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself. In the present case, as discussed above, the respondent/wife was admittedly earning a considerable income as a Government employee even as on the date of filing of the petition. Despite the same, she did not disclose her actual and current salary and sought maintenance from the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner/husband is stated to be employed in a private institution and is also burdened with the responsibility of maintaining his dependent mother. It is further not the case of the respondent/wife that she is suffering from any chronic or communicable disease requiring substantial financial assistance towards medical treatment.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the respondent/wife, despite having sufficient means to maintain herself, sought maintenance from the petitioner/husband. Such a claim is not permissible in law, as has been consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in a plethora of decisions. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court, without duly considering the aforesaid material aspects, mechanically granted maintenance to the respondent/wife, who was capable of maintaining herself, without proper application of mind. Consequently, the impugned order warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision Case has merit and deserves consideration.

9. In result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the Order dated 20.01.2026 passed in F.C.O.P (MC).No.473 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional District Court at Vijayawada.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.