THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6976 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 14.8.2008 made in Crl.Revision Petition No.60 of 2007 by the III Additional District Judge (FTC), Bhimavaram at West Godavari district. The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in M.C.No.2 of 2006 and revision petitioner in the Criminal Revision Petition No.60 of 2007 and the second respondent herein is the respondent in all the matters. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the maintenance case. It is pleaded in the petition as follows: The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and they lead happy marital life only for 20 days and thereafter the respondent along with his family members harassed the petitioner for want of additional dowry and used to torture her mentally and physically. Subsequently, due to the harassment of the petitioner, her father arranged an amount of Rs.60,000/- to the respondent as additional dowry and requested the respondent not to harass the petitioner. But thereafter also, the respondent did not change his attitude towards the petitioner and used to scold her in filthy language and beat her mercilessly. He got illegal intimacy with one Rajya Lakshmi @ Raji and whenever the petitioner used to question the respondent about his illegal intimacy with Rajya Lakshmi @ Raji, he was beating her. Further he along with his family members tried to do away the life of the petitioner by pouring kerosene on her body, but failed to do so and forcibly took away all her gold ornaments and finally the respondent without any manner of right, having sufficient financial capacity to maintain the petitioner, deserted her. Having left with no other option, the petitioner preferred the Maintenance Case No.2 of 2006 before the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from the respondent, whereas after due enquiry, the learned Judge awarded the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner and also directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards the costs of that petitioner, whereas aggrieved by the amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Judge, the petitioner preferred the Criminal Revision Petition No.60 of 2007 before the Court of Additional District Judge, which was dismissed confirming the order passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Further, both the Courts below observed that the documents got marked by the petitioner (Exs.P1 to P6 before the lower Court and Exs.P7 to P10 before the appellate Court, whereas Ex.P1 certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.4.1946, Ex.P2 is certified copy of registered relinquishment deed dated 17.6.1954 and Ex.P3 extract of property tax demand register dated 30.5.2006 and Ex.P4 is wedding card cover, Ex.P5 is photograph with corresponding negative, Ex.P6 is wedding card, Ex.P7 is the market value of certificate of house No.6383, Ex.P8 is the market value of certificate of house No.30-703, Ex.P9 is the sale deed dated 30.7.1936 and Ex.P10 is the sale deed dated 19.10.1943 respectively), do not disclose the name of the respondent or his share in the properties or businesses involved under those documents and therefore those documents are not at all helpful to the petitioner and there is also no such evidence to the effect that the respondent was getting an income of Rs.10,000/- per month and ultimately both the Courts concurrently awarded the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the order dated 14.8.2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2007. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that Exs.P1 to P3 and P7 to P10 referred above clearly provide that the family of the respondent is in the possession of substantial properties noted therein from which he would be getting good income and both the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and awarded less amount towards her maintenance and hence the order dated 14.8.2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No.60 of 2007 is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that Exs.P1 to P3 and P7 to P10 do not show that the properties covered in those documents are in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent and his family members as their joint family properties and those documents pertains to five decades and in those five decades, so many changes might have taken place and on the basis of those documents it cannot be said that the respondent got substantial properties to pay the maintenance awarded by the Courts below. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is liable to be quashed or not. I have perused the record. Except in Ex.P2, no other records or documents provide that the respondent got any properties covered thereunder. Ex.P2 provides that the grand father of the respondent executed a relinquishment deed in respect of house property in favour of his son i.e. the father of the respondent on 17.6.1954, whereas Exs.P7 and P8 are the corresponding documents with regard to the valuation of the property. Therefore, there is no acceptable evidence as to whether the respondent has been enjoying the property. There is also no information as to how many brothers he got and whether all of them have succeeded the property or not. Hence they cannot be taken into consideration. However, unless the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are perverse, or without proper consideration of the evidence on record this petition cannot be entertained. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below. The petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 14-10-2011 DSH/DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6976 of 2008 14.10.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.6976 of 2008 Date: 14th October, 2011 Between: Smt.Saikum Latha Devi .. Petitioner And Saikum Venkata Vivekananda Kumar and another .. Respondents