IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1353 OF 2010 Between: Lamu Sudhakar … PETITIONER And Smt. Lamu Sunitha and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1353 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the husband/father questioning the order of interim maintenance granted by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.251 of 2010 in M.C.No.238 of 2009, dated 02.06.2010, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent No.1/wife and Rs.500/- per month to the respondent No.2/minor child. The petitioner disputes his parentage of the respondent No.2. The petitioner’s counsel says that the petitioner is ready to undergo DNA test to prove the same. It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has left the petitioner’s company without any sufficient cause and she herself deserted the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel placed reliance on Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. in this regard. As the matter now stands, both the parties are living separately. The petitioner alleges that the respondent No.1 is living in adultery. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It is a matter for evidence whether the respondent No.1 is living in adultery and whether the respondent No.2 is not born to the petitioner. As pointed out by the lower Court, interim maintenance is awarded to prevent starvation by the family members. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner is unemployed person and that he has no means to pay maintenance and that the respondent No.1 is having huge properties and income from her tailor work. It is also a matter for evidence. At this stage, there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.1 has got means to maintain herself. Amount of maintenance granted by the lower Court is bare minimum. I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. 2. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the maintenance case as expeditiously as possible. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 28, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1353 OF 2010 July 28, 2010