IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1504 OF 2010 Between: K. Amarnath … PETITIONERS And 1. Smt. G. Srikala & another 3. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1504 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the first respondent and father of the minor second respondent. There is no dispute about relationship between the parties. There is no dispute that both the parties are living separately and the minor living with the first respondent. By the impugned order dated 29.07.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.218 of 2009 in M.C.No.103 of 2009, the lower Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to the minor child from the petitioner. 2. No doubt, there is some bungling in preparation of order by the lower Court. The Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, should have corrected the order before pronouncing the same. It is nobody’s case that the petitioner is having a medical shop. It is the respondents’ case that the petitioner is having mechanical shop and not medical shop. The Presiding Officer of the lower Court carelessly signed the order without correcting the same, even though there is an endorsement by him to the effect that it is corrected by him after transcription. Similar instances of non- correcting typographical and transcription errors in the orders are noticed by this Court from this Judicial Officer in other matters also. It is high time that he should strain himself to correct the orders before pronouncing them. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that because of attitude of the first respondent’s parents, the first respondent has left the petitioner’s company and that the petitioner is ready and willing to receive the respondents 1 and 2 and to maintain them. The petitioner did not take any steps against the first respondent by filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and did not obtain any order thereon. Similarly, no order is obtained for custody of the minor child who is the second respondent. According to the respondents, the petitioner is getting income of Rs.20,000/- per month from his mechanical shop wherein he undertakes repairs of refrigerators, air coolers, fans, motors, etc. On the other hand, the petitioner contends that he is working in a super market getting meager income. It is a matter of evidence to be decided finally after both the parties let in evidence during enquiry of main case. This Court is of the opinion that maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.2,000/- per month to the second respondent are not in any way excessive. 4. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted one more month time from today to pay the entire arrears of maintenance. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 24, 2010 KL HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1504 OF 2010 August 24, 2010 KL