HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5530 OF 2007 DATE:23-09-2010 BETWEEN Gajula Nagamalleswara Rao …Petitioner AND Gajula Bhagya Lakshmi & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5530 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-husband to quash the orders of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali passed in Crl.R.P.No.96 of 2006, dated 2.8.2007 whereby the order of II Additional Munsif Magistrate at Tenali in M.C.No.26 of 2004, dated 10.7.2006 awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the wife and Rs.1,000/- to the son has been confirmed while dismissing the revision. Petitioner herein and the first respondent are the husband and wife and the second respondent herein is their son. Earlier the petitioner-husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P.No.168 of 2002 for restitution of conjugal rights and that the said O.P. was allowed as the same was not contested by the first respondent-wife. Later she filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree and permit her to contest the petition. Even after obtaining the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner-husband has not given any notice calling upon the first respondent-wife to join the conjugal society. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has also filed O.P. seeking dissolution of his marriage and on dismissal of the same, he filed an appeal and the same is pending. The first respondent-wife filed a complaint against the petitioner and his family members and that the police registered a crime and after due investigation, laid a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. in C.C.No.24 of 2003 and that the petitioner and his family members were acquitted of the charge. After considering the evidence brought on record, the trial Court held that the first respondent-wife established that the petitioner-husband necked her out by demanding to bring money by selling away the gifted land and that the same has been supported with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and accordingly, awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- to the first respondent-wife and Rs.1,000/- to the second respondent-son. The revisional Court, on re-appraisal of the evidence brought on record, confirmed the order of the trial Court. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioner-husband neglected to maintain the first respondent-wife and forced her to leave the matrimonial house. Mere acquittal of the petitioner and his family members in C.C.No.24 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. that itself is not sufficient to conclude that there was no harassment meted out to the first respondent-wife. The very fact that the petitioner having obtained an ex pare decree for restitution of conjugal rights did not choose to issue any notice to the first respondent-wife clearly discloses that he is not serious to lead the marital life with the first respondent-wife but he is building up evidence to get rid of her. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence and there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 Tsr.