inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2018 passed in F.C.O.P.No.1008/2018 on
the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Principal Family
Court, Vijayawada.
2. Sri M.Venu Gopal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that
the impugned order of the learned Court below suffers from perversity and
material irregularity, being contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities
of the case. It is urged that the learned Family Court erred in granting
maintenance without proper appreciation of the chief affidavit filed under Order
XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘the C.P.C.,’)
which itself constitutes a procedural violation. The Petitioner contends that
Respondent No.2 failed to substantiate her allegations with documentary proof
regarding alleged payments of cash and Adapaduchukatnam, yet the learned
Court erroneously allowed the petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner
would further argue that the present proceedings are a second round of
litigation, filed only after withdrawal of M.C.No.144/2017, and hence barred by
principles of judicial propriety and fairness.
