IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No : 3069 OF 2007 Between: Ponnada Bhanu Sasikala . .Petitioner And Tadaka Bhaskara Rao .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3069 OF 2007 ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the husband against the order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Srikakulam in Crl.Revision Petition No.36 of 2006, by which order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajam in M.C. No.15 of 2005 granting maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the wife/1st respondent herein was confirmed. 2) There is no dispute about relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the 1st respondent at one point of time. Due to some circumstances and differences, both of them became separated. The petitioner is a software engineer working in United States of America. Ultimately, the petitioner obtained divorce from the 1st respondent through U.S. Court. Now, the 1st respondent filed maintenance case against the petitioner before the Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr.P.C claiming maintenance of Rs.90,000/- per month on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself. There is no dispute for the proposition that a divorced wife is also entitled to maintenance from her previous husband until she remained unmarried, in case she proved that she is unable to maintain herself. At this stage, it may not be relevant to go into reasons for separation between the parties and who was at fault, because the petitioner obtained divorce from the 1st respondent through Court of law in U.S.A. Thus, the only question left out is whether quantum of maintenance awarded by the Courts below is proper and legal. Both the Courts below consistently awarded maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the 1st respondent from the petitioner. 3) Before the Magistrate, the 1st respondent examined herself as P.W-1 and examined her father as P.W-2. No documents were filed by the 1st respondent to show income of the petitioner as software engineer. On the other hand, the petitioner examined himself as R.W- 3 before the Magistrate. Apart from other documents, the petitioner filed Ex.R-40 statement of account prepared by the petitioner himself along with bills. As per Ex.R-40, the petitioner was drawing gross salary of $1,00,863.36 per month and after deducting total taxes of $37,000 his net income per month was $5,321.95. The petitioner sets out various expenditures for himself and ultimately showed $422.69 per month as his savings. From these figures, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that quantum of maintenance awarded by the lower Court is excessive and having no regard to real facts relating to actual earnings of the petitioner. The argument put forward by the petitioner’s counsel lacks reason. Quantum of maintenance is fixed not having regard to savings of the husband, but having regard to income of the husband. Whether husband saves any money out of his income or not, or whether the husband incurs any loans for his own maintenance, they are not relevant in fixing quantum of maintenance. It is for the husband to minimize his expenses having regard to his liability to maintain his wife/1st respondent as per law. He cannot ask the wife to live on his charity to be given to her out of his savings if any. Admittedly the petitioner has got gross income of $1,00,863.36 per annum and monthly net income is $5,321.95. Amount of maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month awarded by the lower Court comes to around $800 per month. When the petitioner is having net income of $5,321.95 per month, amount of maintenance of around $800 per month awarded by the Courts below to the 1st respondent is in no way excessive. 4) Relying upon Dharampal V. Ramshri[1] and Kola Keshava Reddy V. Kola Anantha Lakshmi[2](1997 Crl.L.J 933(Andhra Pradesh High Court), it is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable as against revisional order passed by the sessions Court, because it amounts to exercising second round of revisional powers by this Court. 5) Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any irregularity or illegality or impropriety. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU December 05, 2009 KSH [1] 1993 CRL.L.J-1049 (SUPREME COURT) [2] 1997 CRL.L.J-933 (HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH)