HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No.1011 of 2001 ORDER: This criminal revision case is directed against the Order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, dated 04.06.2001 allowing M.P.No.186 of 2000 in M.C.No.9 of 1997 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the Maintenance Case. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the 1st respondent-wife herein and the revision petitioner was solemnised on 18.03.1976 and out of the wedlock three sons were born to them. Thereafter, the revision petitioner contacted second marriage with one Sai Kumari in the year 1988 and hence the 1st respondent-wife along with her son is staying with her parents. Since the parents of the 1st respondent-wife are not in a position to maintain the respondents 1 and 2 herein, they filed M.C.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the Family Judge, Warangal, against the revision petitioner seeking maintenance and accordingly they were granted monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- each from the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner did not pay the maintenance amount, the 1st respondent-wife filed M.P.Np.640 of 1998 seeking recovery of the maintenance amount. While the said petition was pending, the elders of both the parties advised them to live amicably and accordingly, the 1st respondent-wife joined the company of the revision petitioner and lived together for one month. Thereafter, on 20.05.2000, the revision petitioner has driven out the respondents 1 and 2 herein from his house. Since the father of the 1st respondent-wife died, the 1st respondent along with her son is staying with her uncle’s house at Secunderabad. It is stated that the revision petitioner is working as Senior Pipe Fitter in Government Ordinance Factory, Chandrapur and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the present petition seeking enforcement of M.C.No.9 of 1997. The revision petitioner contested the said petition by filing a counter. The trial Court, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, allowed the said petition by order dated 04.06.2001 ordering attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-husband. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order. The approach of the Court below is perfectly valid and no interference is called for. The Court below clearly stated that there is no order passed by the Family Court, Warangal, cancelling the maintenance amount granted through the order passed in M.C.No.9 of 1997. In the absence of which, the Court below was justified in ordering attachment of the salary of the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in M.C.No.9 of 1997 is in- executable as the earlier execution petition filed in M.P.No.640 of 1998 before the Family Court, Warangal, was dismissed on 13.07.1997, cannot be accepted. Further, the Court below has got jurisdiction to try the present petition and pass necessary orders thereunder since the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any District where he or she resides. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in allowing the petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Court below. The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 07.04.2010 Gsn.