IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5529 OF 2010 Between:- Syed Babu …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor for CBI., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and three others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5529 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 17-02-2010 in C.R.P.No.63 of 2009, on the file of the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, wherein the said revision petition was dismissed, confirming the order dated 19-08- 2009 in Crl.M.P.No.319 of 2008 in M.C.No.2 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kanigiri, wherein interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month was granted to the second respondent herein and Rs.500/- was granted to respondents 3 and 4 each. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner is the husband of second respondent and father of respondents 3 and 4. The respondents filed M.C.No.2 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kanigiri and the same is pending. The respondents filed Crl.M.P.No.319 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 19-08-2009 granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the second respondent and Rs.500/- each to respondents 3 and 4 herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.63 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, confirming the order of the learned Magistrate. Hence, the present petition. 4. It is stated that the maintenance case is pending and the present petition is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate and as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a mason earning not more than Rs.75/- per day. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner is earning much more and the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by the Courts below and the respondents are virtually starving. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered that a direction can be given for disposal of the main case itself, as the M.C was filed in the year 2008. Hence, without going into merits of the case in the present petition, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall dispose of M.C.No.2 of 2008 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall pay the interim maintenance as ordered by the Courts below till the disposal of the main case. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of with the above direction. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd November, 2010 Lrkm.