IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3023 of 2009 DATE: 30.09.2010 Between: Ella Rajam …… Petitioner And: The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By the Public Prosecutor and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3023 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent and father of the 3rd respondent. Originally in M.C.No.20 of 2003, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jagtial by order dated 16.12.2006 granted maintenance of Rs.800/- per month each to the respondents 2 and 3 from the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was questioned by the petitioner before the II Additional Sessions Court, Karimnagar at Jagtial in Crl.R.P.No.16 of 2007. The said Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 01.12.2008 confirmed maintenance amount payable to the 2nd respondent/wife, but set aside that portion of the order of the Magistrate relating to grant of maintenance to the 3rd respondent/daughter. The petitioner questions the said revisional order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2) Admittedly the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately since the year 1977 when the 2nd respondent executed Ex.R-1 document dated 27.07.1977. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the 2nd respondent received permanent alimony of Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner under Ex.R-1 and gave divorce to the petitioner. Ex.R-1 does not read that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid towards permanent alimony or for future maintenance. It reads that the 2nd respondent left her husband by taking Rs.2,000/- in cash. The plain reading of the document shows that the 2nd respondent received the said amount as consideration for leaving the petitioner and not towards permanent alimony or future maintenance. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that the said amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by the 2nd respondent towards permanent alimony from the petitioner, it would not disentitle the 2nd respondent from claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C in case she is unable to maintain herself. Even a divorced wife, is entitled for maintenance from her quondam husband in case she remained unmarried. It is not as if the 2nd respondent is still having any part of the above Rs.2,000/- obtained by her under Ex.R-1 dated 27.07.1977. Admittedly the petitioner is working as a government employee in Panchayat Raj Department. It is stated that the petitioner is getting net salary of Rs.8,000/- after deductions. As Government servant, the petitioner gets gross salary of not less than Rs.14,000/- per month. Having regard to the said income, the amount of maintenance of Rs.800/- per month granted to the 2nd respondent is in no way excessive or onerous. It is contended that the 2nd respondent is a Beedi worker and is able to get her two meals a day even as per the evidence of P.W-2 who is a co-beedi worker. Getting two meals a day is not the only expenditure for a person in life. That is the reason why the lower Court granted a minimum sum of Rs.800/- per month towards maintenance which works out at Rs.26/- and odd per day. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Revisional Court as well as the Magistrate on this aspect. 3) In the result, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted eight weeks time to deposit all the arrears of maintenance payable to the 2nd respondent, if any. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 30, 2010 KSH