THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6736 of 2007 & 7013 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These two Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash common order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in Crl.R.P.Nos.51 and 55 of 2006, confirming order dated 27.09.2006 passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in M.C.No.6 of 2004. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner and the respondent in the above M.C are wife and husband and petitioners 2 and 3 are their children, born out of their wedlock. Alleging that the respondent driven out them from the house in the month of March, 2001 and that he had developed illicit intimacy with one Yadava Laxmi and neglecting to maintain them, the petitioners filed the above M.C under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month each. To prove the claim, on behalf of the petitioners, the first petitioner wife examined herself as P.W.1 and examined one more witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. On behalf of the respondent husband, he examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.8. The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- per month to petitioners 2 and 3 respectively, and negatived the claim of the first petitioner for maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the husband filed Criminal Revision Petition No.51 of 2006, whereas the wife filed Criminal Revision Petition No.55 of 2006. The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, on reconsidering the material on record, dismissed both the revision petitions confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Challenging the same, the husband filed Crl.P.No.6736 of 2007, whereas the wife filed Crl.P.No.7013 of 2008. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6736 of 2007 contends that the petitioner husband is an un- employee; that he has already purchased a plot in the name of his wife and constructed a house therein and that he has also deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in fixed deposit for the welfare of the children, and therefore, no further maintenance can be awarded. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7013 of 2008 contends that both the Courts below negatived the claim of the petitioner wife for maintenance only on the ground that a house plot was purchased in her name and that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in fixed deposit, which was spent for her daughter as she was suffering from medical problems, and therefore, the Courts below have not justified in denying the maintenance to her. The evidence adduced by the parties discloses that the respondent husband had developed illicit intimacy with another lady, and in that connection he was convicted by the Special Judicial Magistrate for PCR Cases for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., in C.C.No.290 of 2004, against which, the husband preferred an appeal and the same is pending. Therefore, it is justified on the part of the first petitioner wife to stay away from the husband along with her children. Further, the wife admitted that apart from the plot worth of Rs.5,00,000/-, a lower income group house about worth Rs.1,50,000/- was also given to her by her husband, and that during the compromise talks, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in Kisan Vijas Patras under Exs.R.1 and R.3. Ex.R.3 is the application form for purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras. Since the husband procured a plot situated at Hasanparthy admeasuring 650 square yards worth Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- and also purchased a house in Lower Income Group worth Rs.1,50,000/- in his wife’s name, the lower revisional Court rightly drawn presumption that unless the husband had sufficient means and income, it is not possible for him to purchase house plot and also house in the name of his wife, apart from depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in the fixed deposit. It is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his children, and therefore, the lower revisional court rightly confirmed the award of maintenance to the children, negativing the maintenance to wife. In view of the properties given to the wife during the course of compromise in the presence of elders, the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality to be corrected in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Criminal Petitions are accordingly dismissed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 11.11.2010 va