IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6612 OF 2010 Between : Gaddala Shankaraiah @ Birika Shankar .... Petitioner A N D The State of A.P. and another … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6612 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband that during the pendency of M.C.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, Crl.M.P.No.589 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent-wife was allowed granting interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month. On a revision filed by the petitioner-husband in Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2009 before the Judge, Family Court- cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, the same was allowed in part reducing the interim maintenance from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.1,500/- per month and also directing the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manthani, to dispose of M.C.No.19 of 2008 within a period of four months, which became final, having not preferred any appeal by the 1st respondent-wife. Therefore, filing of D.V.C.No.23 of 2010 claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is not maintainable. It is his further contention that while M.C.No.19 of 2008 filed by the 1st respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband is pending, filing of D.V.C.No.23 of 2010 would be subjudice and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. 4. Though the learned counsel placed reliance on the above submissions, which are not form part of the record before the Courts concerned, unless there is a documentary proof as regards the allegations of the petitioner-husband against the 1st respondent-wife, this Court cannot quash the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent-wife against the petitioner-husband. In any event, the petitioner-husband is at liberty to canvass the same before the Court concerned by producing relevant documents. On production of such documents, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. With the above observations and direction, the criminal petition is disposed of. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO JULY 13, 2010. YVL