IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.196 of 2008 Between: Kundrapu Lakshmi … Petitioner And Kundrapu Nookaraju and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.196 of 2008 ORDER: - Wife invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the orders of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Visakhapatnam, dated 05.06.2007 in Criminal Revision Petition No.12 of 2006, whereby the revision filed by the respondent/husband against the award of maintenance by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalli, in M.C.No.12 of 1998, dated 31.03.2006, has been allowed partly by reducing the maintenance to Rs.500/- from Rs.1,000/-, awarded by the trial Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, under Ex.P1 divorce deed executed by the petitioner, dated 05.01.1987, which is also spoken by R.W.3 who is aged 90 years, that both the parties took divorce since the petitioner refused to join the respondent as per the advice of the elders. Wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., until she remained unmarried. Though the respondent claimed that the petitioner took permanent alimony of Rs.2,500/-, he failed to establish his defence about payment of the same. The trial court on detailed consideration of the matter held that the wife is entitled to maintenance and accordingly awarded Rs.1,000/- per month. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced concluded that the petition was filed in the year 1998 seeking maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. Though it is the discretion of the Magistrate to award maintenance taking into consideration the evidence, but the evidence on record clearly shows that a suggestion was made to the husband that the land, which was said to be in possession, was acquired by the Government and he received compensation of Rs.80,000/- However, there is nothing on record to say any amount of compensation was paid to the respondent and in the absence of income of the respondent proved and established by the petitioner, that the husband got married subsequently and also having aged parents to look after, the learned Sessions Judge rightly reduced the maintenance as claimed by the petitioner. No illegality is discernable with the discretion exercised by the trial court, warranting interference by this Court. The Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move for alteration of the maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C., who remains unmarried. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 17th June 2010 lmv