HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1090 OF 2010 DATE:07.07.2010 Between: Narne Madhavi and another …… Petitioners. And: 1. Narne Laxman (died) 2. Narne Venkateswara Rao and 5 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1090 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. Questioning reversing order passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.155 of 2008, the petitioners filed this revision case. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam by order dated 12.09.2008 granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioners as against the respondents 2 to 5. The 1st petitioner is wife and the 2nd petitioner is minor son of the deceased 1st respondent in the trial court. The respondents 2 and 3 are parents-in-law, the respondents 4 and 5 are brothers-in-law and the 6th respondent is wife of one of the brothers-in- law of the 1st petitioner. On appeal, the lower appellate court set aside the said order of maintenance holding that there is no liability to pay maintenance on the living respondents 2 to 6. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the deceased husband of the 1st petitioner left house property and agricultural lands and that they are all in the hands of the in-laws. As the matter now stands, except averments, there is no proof to show that the deceased husband of the 1st petitioner owned any immovable properties and whether they are in hands of the in-laws now. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as per Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, interim orders have to be passed on affidavits. But, those affidavits have to be supported by prima facie proof by way of production of documents at least. In the absence of any such material before the trial court, it cannot be said that any of the in- laws are liable to pay maintenance to the petitioners. If husband of the 1st petitioner were to be alive, then irrespective of holding properties or not, he would be liable to pay maintenance to the destitute wife and minor child. This Court is of the opinion that some proof is required in support of the petitioners’ contention. The said proof can be let in by the petitioners during enquiry of the Domestic Violence Case by the trial court. 3. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.8 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible and within three months from today. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:07.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1090 OF 2010 Date:07.07.2010 Gk.