CRLP/8332/2009 of Pidathala Srinivasulu Vs Pidathala Mrudhula on 29 December 2011

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 30-06-2009 passed inCriminal Revision Petition No.44 of 2008, on the file of the Court of VAdditional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-III) Miryalagudamodifying order dated 19-05-2008 passed in Maintenance Case No.21of 2006, on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of FirstClass, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

2. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are the petitioners Nos.2and 3 and the petitioner herein is the respondent in the Maintenancecase and the petitioner No.1 in the maintenance case is the mother ofthe respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein. For the sake of convenience, Irefer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case hereafter.

3. The Maintenance Case was filed by the Petitioner No.1 onbehalf of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/- p.m. each to thepetitioners Nos.2 and 3 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class, Miryalaguda. On contest, the Maintenance Case waspartly allowed awarding Rs.1,500/- p.m. to them towards theirmaintenance against the respondent from the date of order i.e. from 19-05-2008, against which, the Criminal Revision Petition was preferred, which was disposed of by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Nalgonda reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.1,500/- toRs.1,250/- p.m. each to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3.

4. Briefly the claim of the Petitioners is as follows : The petitionerNo.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and the petitionersNos.2 and 3 were born to them during their marital life and without anymanner of right the respondent deserted and neglected them.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that hissalary at the time of filing the maintenance case was Rs.8,000/- p.m.and out of that he had to pay monthly installment of Rs.2,500/- towardshouse loan jointly obtained by him and his wife and the balance had tobe utilized for the maintenance of his parents and he has been stayingin a house jointly constructed by him and his wife and apart from thathe has to maintain himself and therefore granting the amount ofRs.1,250/- p.m. each to the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 is on the higherside and accordingly it may be reduced.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

7. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds arethere in order to reduce the maintenance amount as prayed for?

8. I have gone through the record. It is the bounden duty of therespondent as a responsible father to take care of the education,maintenance and other necessities to bring up his children i.e. thepetitioners Nos.2 and 3, in all aspects, subject to the provisions ofSection 125 Cr.P.C. However, in the present day circumstancesawarding the maintenance of Rs.1,250/- p.m. to the petitioners nos.2

and 3 is not high. In fact, it is not at all sufficient for their maintenance. Taking into consideration the salary of the respondent and also hisencumbrances referred above, I do not find any reason to interfere withthe order passed by the revisional Court. Further, his income mighthave been increased by now. Further, unless the orders passed bythe Courts below are perverse or not supported by any evidence thequestion of interfering with the same does not arise at all. Hence, I findthat there are no merits in the petition and ultimately the petition isliable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the Criminal petitionis dismissed.

__________________________

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

Dated:29-12-2011.Dsh.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

245

DSH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8332 OF 2009

December, 29, 2011