IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 1 of 2007 Between: Kalla Tirupathi Rao … Petitioner V/s. Kalla Padmavathi & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Ravi Shankar Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 1 OF 2007 O R D E R : This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the order in Criminal Revision Petition No. 86 of 2004 dated 23-3-2007 on the file of the Court of Second Additional Distgrict and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are minors being represented by the first respondent, who is their natural mother and next friend. Respondents 1 to 3 filed MC.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.3000 to the first respondent and Rs.2000 to the respondents 2 and 3. The address of the petitioner herein was given as follows: Kalla Tirupathirao, s/o. late Tatayya, aged about 35 years, Hindu, working as Technician in Steel Melting Section, Employee No. 117720, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Kurmannapalem P.S., Visakhapatnam, permanent resident of Baruva village, Sompeta Mandalam, Srikakulam district. 3. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta dated 28-10-2004 in M.C.No. 21 of 2004 clearly shows that the petitioner herein was set exparte on 15-10-2004 and that he did not appear before the Court inspite of receiving notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. Since the learned Magistrate allowed the maintenance petition and granted meager amount of Rs.400/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.300/- per month to each of respondents 2 and 3. They carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court and the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam, by the impugned order dated 23-3-2007 allowed the said revision and awarded maintenance of Rs.3000 to the first petitioner and Rs.2,000 to each of the respondents 2 and 3 from the date of order i.e., 28-10-2004. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is that the notice was sent to the village address of the petitioner and not to the address where he was working. As seen from the cause title of the maintenance case and also the revision, the respondents herein had giving clear address i.e., office address as well as the permanent resident address of the petitioner. No material has been filed to show that to which address the notices were sent. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner did not carry the matter in revision and challenged the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sompeta. This shows that he did not challenge the service of notice on him in maintenance case on the same address. When notice was served on the same address in maintenance case before Magistrate in all probabilities the notice on the address would have been served in Revision also. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner herein did not receive the notice in Revision. In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner himself categorically stated that he is drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and got landed property. In my considered opinion, there are no grounds to quash the order under challenge. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRAKUMAR. 22-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7 4 6 1 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 12 Date: 22-04-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L