THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.279 of 2010 (Dated: 16-02-2010) Between: Gade Bala Chennakesava Reddy and another …Petitioners A n d 1. Gade Rukma Bai 2. State of A.P rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.279 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 18.01.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2010 in M.C.No.61 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge granted maintenance to the 1st respondent herein at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month from 6.8.2009. 2. Background facts in nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the respondents in Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2010 are: The petitioners herein are the sons of 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is aged 70 years. She filed M.C.No.61 of 2009 under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. The 1st petitioner herein is working as Civil Employee Senior Charge-man in INS GARUDA NAVY and whereas the 2nd petitioner herein is working as Headmaster in K.C.Elementary School, Kothareddypalem village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District. They are stated to be earning Rs.40,000/- and Rs.25,000/- per month respectively. It is the version of the 1st respondent herein that she has been neglected by the petitioners herein which made her to approach the Court by making an application in M.C.No.61 of 2009 under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C claiming maintenance. She also moved Crl.M.P.No.59 of 2010 claiming interim maintenance. 3. The learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 1st respondent herein and directed the revision petitioners 1 and 2 to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- each from the date of the petition, i.e. 06.8.2009, by order dated 18.01.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the 1st respondent has not stated in the petition with regard to the date from which she has been neglected by the petitioners herein and therefore, she is not entitled for grant of any interim maintenance. The fact remains that the petitioners are the sons of the 1st respondent and she is aged 70 years. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are well placed in society drawing a decent salary. In that view of the matter, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of M.C.No.61 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.16-02-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.279 of 2010 (Dated: 16-02-2010)