THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5438 of 2011 ORDER: This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order dated 28.02.2011 in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 2008 arising out of the order dated 09.04.2008 in M.C.No.6 of 2006. The petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the 2nd respondent. The respondents have filed M.C.No.6 of 2006 for grant of maintenance on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner herein with the 1st respondent was performed on 15.03.2000 and a child was born to them and disserted the 1st respondent and they are not able to maintain themselves. The petitioner herein contended that the father of the 1st respondent ill-treated him and the brother and sister-in-law of the 1st respondent also abused him in filthy language and the 1st respondent is earning Rs.1,500/- per month by doing embroidery work and also as a private teacher and, therefore, is not liable to pay the maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.1,500/- to the 2nd respondent. The Court found that there was desertion and the claim of the petitioner herein is not true. In the revision, the learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dated 09.04.2008. The claim of the petitioner herein is the Courts below have not taken into consideration that the 1st respondent was earning as a school teacher and also doing embroidery work and earning by herself. Evidently, the petitioner herein is employed as a teacher and he gets increased salaries at present, though by the time of filing of the petition he may be getting a sum of Rs.7,200/- alone. There is no material to show that the evidence of the 1st respondent about the desertion and neglect pleaded by her is not correct. In fact, the petitioner herein has not taken any steps for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the 1st respondent is said to be pursued her education, there is no proof of desertion on her side and the Courts below have accepted the evidence of P.W.1. The claim of the petitioner herein that he was insulted by the father of the 1st respondent and her brother, is also not true. There is no permanent employment for the 1st respondent and the respondents are, evidently, living separately from the petitioner and the petitioner cannot deny the liability to maintain the minor daughter. Taking into consideration the cost of living and the needs, if the 1st respondent is earning something, it does not meet the necessities of good living and keeping in view of the permanent employment of the petitioner and also the fact that there are no liabilities for him, the amount of maintenance granted by the Courts below cannot be said to be irregular. Accordingly, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 25-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5438 of 2011 DATE: 25-08-2011 MR