HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5992 of 2009 DATED:06.08.2009 Between: M.Sadarla Lokesh and others .. Petitioners And M.Pavani @ Renuka and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5992 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.V.Mani Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission and as only some breathing time is sought to be permitted to the petitioners to make payment of the amount ordered by the impugned order. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool passed an order in Crl.M.P.No.2578 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.30 of 2008 on 22.06.2009 in favour of the first respondent herein on the strength of an order of interim maintenance granted in her favour on 29.07.2008. The first respondent contended that the said orders to pay interim maintenance were not complied with and hence, she sought for attachment of the first respondent’s moveable properties. The first respondent therein claimed that Crl.A.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool against the maintenance order is pending consideration and a case for restitution of conjugal rights is also pending and hence, the first respondent herein is not entitled to get any relief from the petitioners. The learned Magistrate observed that the first respondent did not assign any reason for not complying with the order granting interim maintenance for about one year and the learned Magistrate also noted that no order of stay has been received from the appellate Court. Consequently, the learned Magistrate ordered that the entire arrears of maintenance shall be paid on or before 01.07.2009, failing which attachment of petition schedule properties shall be effected. The merits or otherwise of the order granting interim maintenance are the subject matter of Crl.A.No.99 of 2008 before the Court of Session and cannot be the subject of consideration herein. The claim that there was no order of stay or suspension from the appellate Court in respect of the order granting interim maintenance, is not in dispute and if so, the learned Magistrate is correct in passing the impugned order, as per the intent of the maintenance order. Incidentally in para No.5 of the interim order, it was originally typed that the “petitioner” was directed to pay arrears of maintenance which patent and obvious typographical error was corrected on 03.07.2009 by the learned Magistrate as a direction to the first respondent. Mentioning the petitioner as the person liable to pay maintenance is an obvious error on the face of it and it needs no elaboration and Section 362 of the Code permits the learned Magistrate to effect such correction of a clerical error. This being the sole ground for the petitioner challenging the impugned order, the Criminal Petition is not sustainable. Sri M.V.Mani Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the first petitioner herein/first respondent may be granted a reasonable time to make the payment of the amount due towards interim maintenance in view of his financial difficulties. The occupation of the first respondent is stated to be running a hairdressing saloon, from the running of which, in a small town, the first respondent cannot be assumed in the ordinary and natural course of human events to be very affluent. As the petitioners did not attempt to pay the arrears of maintenance before 01.07.2009, the petition schedule properties would have been already attached by the trial Court, as per the impugned order providing security for the arrears of maintenance. Under the circumstances before proceeding against the attached properties, the petitioners can be granted reasonable time to pay the same. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed but the first petitioner herein/first respondent in Crl.M.P.No.2578 of 2009 in D.V.C.No.30 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool is granted time for 15 days since today to pay half of the arrears of maintenance due to the first respondent herein as on today and is granted a further time of another 15 days from then to pay the remaining half of the said arrears of maintenance due to the first respondent till the date of such payment. Till then, the trial Court may not order further steps concerning the petition schedule properties in pursuance of any attachment, if effected in pursuance of the impugned order. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 6th August 2009 KH