Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a criminal revision petition filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by the petitioner-husband challenging an order of the Principal Family Court, Vijayawada, which granted monthly maintenance to the respondent-wife and minor child under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner contended that the Family Court order suffered from perversity and material irregularity, as it relied on a chief affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without proper appreciation, lacked documentary proof to substantiate allegations of cash payments and Adapaduchukatnam, and failed to consider the pendency of other proceedings such as D.O.P.No.3/2016 and G.W.O.P No.52/2017. The petitioner further argued that the proceedings constituted a second round of litigation after withdrawal of M.C.No.144/2017 and that the quantum of Rs.7,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to the child was excessive and arbitrary. The respondents, through Legal Aid Counsel, opposed the revision, submitting that maintenance is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, that oral testimony of PW.1 was credible and sufficient even without documentary proof, and that the right to claim maintenance is independent and recurring in nature. The Court framed the point for consideration whether the impugned Family Court order was correct, legal, and proper. In its analysis, the Court examined the scope and object of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, noting it includes food, clothing and shelter and is an outcome of the natural duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents. It discussed the broad and socially purposive interpretation of 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC, referring to Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, which held that even live-in relationships fall within the ambit of domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and that strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition. The Court also considered the distinction between monetary relief under Section 20 of the D.V. Act and maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, observing that such monetary relief can be granted in addition to maintenance. The available text of the judgment does not record a final decision on the revision petition or indicate whether the impugned order was set aside or upheld.
Headnote
A) Maintenance Law - Scope and Object - Maintenance includes food, clothing and shelter and is a measure of social justice to prevent destitution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The court discussed that maintenance is an entitlement of wife, children and parents and is an outcome of natural duty, referring to Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat; held that object is to prevent destitution. (Paras 8-10)
B) Domestic Violence Act - Monetary Relief - Monetary relief under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is distinct from maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and can be granted in addition - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 20; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - Court referred to Shome Nikhil Danani v. Tanya Banon Danani and Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and held that maintenance orders do not preclude relief under D.V. Act. (Paras 11-12)
C) Family Law - Interpretation of 'Wife' - Term 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC must be given broad and socially purposive interpretation including live-in relationships and divorced women - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - Court referred to Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and other rulings, held strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition to prevent vagrancy. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order in F.C.O.P.No.1088 of 2018 dated 09.03.2022, passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?
Law Points
- Maintenance includes food
- clothing and shelter
- is a measure of social justice
- object to prevent destitution
- 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC to be interpreted broadly
- monetary relief under Section 20 D.V. Act distinct and additional to Section 125 CrPC
- strict proof of marriage not precondition
- live-in relationships within domestic relationship under D.V. Act
Case Details
2026 LawText (AP) (02) 13
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1009 of 2022
Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao
M.Venu Gopal, A.K.Kishore Reddy
State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi; Chinnam Kiranmayi Smily; Chinnam Vineeth Kumar (minor represented by mother/respondent No.2)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against order granting maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by Family Court
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/husband sought to set aside the Family Court order dated 09.03.2018 in F.C.O.P.No.1008/2018 directing payment of monthly maintenance to respondents 2 and 3
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the order as perverse, materially irregular, based on improper appreciation of chief affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, lack of documentary proof, second round of litigation, and excessive quantum
Previous Decisions
Family Court, Vijayawada passed order granting Rs.7,500/- per month to wife and Rs.5,000/- per month to minor child; prior proceedings M.C.No.144/2017 withdrawn, D.O.P.No.3/2016 and G.W.O.P No.52/2017 pending
Issues
Whether the order in F.C.O.P.No.1088 of 2018 dated 09.03.2022 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada is correct, legal, and proper?
Whether maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should be granted on oral testimony without documentary proof?
Whether the term 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC includes women in live-in relationships and divorced women?
Whether monetary relief under Section 20 of the D.V. Act can be granted in addition to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that impugned order suffers from perversity and material irregularity, contrary to evidence on record and probabilities of the case, and Family Court erred in granting maintenance without proper appreciation of chief affidavit filed under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC.
Petitioner contended that Respondent No.2 failed to substantiate allegations with documentary proof regarding alleged payments of cash and Adapaduchukatnam, yet Court erroneously allowed the petition.
Petitioner argued that present proceedings are second round of litigation, filed only after withdrawal of M.C.No.144/2017, barred by principles of judicial propriety and fairness, and pendency of D.O.P.No.3/2016 and G.W.O.P No.52/2017 shows attempt to harass.
Respondents contended that Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 125 CrPC to secure maintenance for wife and child; absence of documentary proof does not negate oral testimony of PW.1; grant of maintenance is social justice to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
Respondents submitted that right to claim maintenance is independent and recurring; quantum of Rs.7,500/- to wife and Rs.5,000/- to child is reasonable, proportionate to means, and in consonance with settled principles.
Ratio Decidendi
Maintenance includes food, clothing and shelter and is a measure of social justice to prevent destitution; term 'wife' under Section 125 CrPC must be given broad and socially purposive interpretation including live-in relationships and divorced women; strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition; monetary relief under Section 20 D.V. Act is distinct from maintenance and can be granted in addition.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the order in F.C.O.P.No.1088 of 2018 dated 09.03.2022, passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?
Under Indian law, the term 'maintenance' includes an entitlement to food, clothing and shelter, being typically available to the wife, children and parents. It is a measure of social justice and an outcome of the natural duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents, when they are unable to maintain themselves.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, at paragraph Nos.38 & 39 held that even live-in relationships fall within the ambit of “domestic relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, held at paragraph No.24 that monetary relief as stipulated under Section 20 of the D.V.Act is different from maintenance, which can be in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC challenging order dated 09.03.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1008/2018 by IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family Court, Vijayawada. Prior proceedings included M.C.No.144/2017 which was withdrawn, D.O.P.No.3/2016 pending before Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, and G.W.O.P No.52/2017 pending before Family Court, Vijayawada. The Family Court granted maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3. The revision was reserved on 07.01.2026 and pronounced on 09.02.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 397, 401, 125
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XVIII Rule 4
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 20
