THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.1509 AND 1510 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. BETWEEN: K.BALARAM RAJU AND OTHERS .. PETITIONERS AND K.PADMA AND STATE OF A.P. .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.1509 AND 1510 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: 1. These two revisions are directed against the interlocutory orders passed in D.V.C.No.6855 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Crl.R.C.No.1510 of 2008 is filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.6324 of 2008 and Crl.R.C.No.1509 of 2008 is filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.6323 of 2008. The respondent herein is the applicant in D.V.C.No.6855 of 2008. 2. The applicant was married to Sri.K.Balaram Raju on 18.5.1989. According to the applicant, a child by name Pratyusha was born on 30.10.1990 out of the wedlock. The applicant filed D.V.C seeking various reliefs such as maintenance, protection etc. She filed Crl.M.P.No.6323 of 2008 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per mensum. The husband who is the 1st petitioner herein filed counter denying the claim of the wife. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to grant interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month by an order dated 25.9.2008. The respondents in the DVC filed Crl.M.P.No.6324 of 2008 to dismiss the DVC at the stage of enquiry. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondents in the DVC failed to make out any valid ground to dismiss the petition filed by the wife. 3. Despite notice being served on the respondent-wife, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance. Hence, heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the applicant-complainant does not deserve for interim maintenance and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. A further submission has been made that the property owned by 1st petitioner herein is a joint family property and there are many dependents and therefore the quantum of amount fixed by the learned Magistrate as interim maintenance is on high side and the same is required to be reduced. 5. I have gone through the orders impugned in these revisions. The application filed by the petitioners to dismiss the DVC without enquiry has no substance. The learned Magistrate has considered this aspect and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.NO.6324 of 2008. With regard to the grant of interim maintenance the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The respondent herein indisputably is the wife of the 1st petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate has considered the rival contentions of the parties and proceeded to grant interim maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month. I do not see any valid ground to disturb the said finding. 6. Accordingly, both the revisions fail and the same are dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the DVC within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8th September, 2009. ( B.Seshasayana Reddy,J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS.1509 AND 1510 OF 2008 8th September, 2009.