HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1889 OF 2008 DATE: 12-08-2011 BETWEEN: Chandra Saibaba. - - - Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner/ Respondent. AND Chandra Padmavathi, two others and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Respondents/ Petitioners. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1889 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order dated 28-11-2007 in Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2007, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam and corresponding order dated 19-04-2007 in Maintenance Case No.1 of 2006, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Respondent, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the Petitioners in M.C. No.1 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Maintenance Case. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that the first of them happened to be the wife and the second and third of them happened to be the children of the Respondent and without any manner of right the respondent deserted them, whereas after due enquiry the enquiry Court awarded maintenance to the Petitioners, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Petition. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that even though there is admission from the Respondent as RW.1 that his gross salary is 13,794/- and net salary is Rs.9,020/- per month, it is unreasonable to award Rs.3,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.1,500/- each to the second and third petitioners p.m. respectively, the total of which comes to Rs.6,000/- p.m. and further he has to maintain his old aged parents and therefore the total maintenance to be payable to the petitioners may be reduced to Rs.4,500/- p.m. It is also his contention that only his net salary can be taken into consideration. 5. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners that this is a matter of 2006 and the respondent, who is a Goods Train Driver is a permanent employee in the Railways Department and now he gets a gross salary of Rs.36,000/- p.m. and it is very difficult for the Petitioners to live on the basis of the maintenance amounts awarded and confirmed by the Courts below and there are no merits in the Criminal Revision itself. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to upheld the claim of the Respondent? 7. Emphatically, the Respondent as RW.1 clearly admitted in his evidence that his gross salary happened to be Rs.13,794/- and his net salary happened to be Rs.9,020/-. Even though there is no different evidence during the last five years, his salary would have been increased definitely in his job. Further, the Petitioners are entitled to maintenance subject to the status of the Respondent and also their status and needs. Taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity to quash the orders in Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2007, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam and Maintenance Case No.1 of 2006, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. Hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 12-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 121 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1889 OF 2008 August, 12, 2011 DSH