1

APHC010290042023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3369]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 533/2023
Between:
K.sreekanth Naik ...PETITIONER
AND
P Nalini and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SANDEEP BHAVAN PAMARATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P NAGENDRA REDDY

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1098/2023

Between:
Smt.P.Nalini ...PETITIONER
AND

K Srekanth Naik and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P NAGENDRA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SANDEEP BHAVAN PAMARATI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

 2

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2022 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018

passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District Judge,

Ananthapuram (for short, ‘the Family Court’), the Respondent/Husband in the

F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 filed Crl.R.C.No.533 of 2013 questioning the

correctness of the Order. In contrast, the Petitioner/Wife has filed

Crl.R.C.No.1098 of 2023 not being satisfied with the maintenance amount

granted by the Family Court. As both the Revisions arise out of order passed

in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, these Revisions are disposed of by common

Order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as

they are stated in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018.

3. F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 was filed by the Petitioner-Wife, under section

125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking to grant a

sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance to her.

4. After considering the evidence presented by both parties and

concluding the hearing, the Family Court has partly allowed the petition in

favour of the Petitioner against the Respondent. Consequently, the Family

Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month towards her maintenance.

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both

parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court
 3

enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing

of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions

made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra)

case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to

be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter

IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive

procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter

alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file

affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered

by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a

dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved

person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite

side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or

misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section

340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

6. The exposition of law in Rajnesh case cited supra, was to remove the

stumbling blocks in the procedure and the inordinate delay being caused in

the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of the orders.

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been

recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias

1
(2021) 2 SCC 324
 4

2
Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma and expressing anguish over non-

compliance/improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of

Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance

thereof.

8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits

disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has

relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @

Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that

the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside

for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble

Apex Court.

9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited

supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and

another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set

aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,

Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of

disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with

the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of

Rajnesh’s case cited supra.

10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack

of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the

2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451
3
Criminal Revision No.736 of 2018, dated 02.12.2023
 5

Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the

observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits

and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim

maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such

maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.

11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of

the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of

2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the

procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly,

set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court –

cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration

and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing

their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the

directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh

(supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict

adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking

in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant

information from the respective party.

 6

14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh

after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if

any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay

maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the

disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

15. With the directions provided above, the Criminal Revision Cases are

disposed of accordingly.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J
Date: 25.04.2023
SAK
 7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs: 533/2023 & 1098/2023

Date: 25.04.2023

SAK