THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3513 of 2008 This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the Orders passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2007 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and consequently the Orders passed in M.C.No.27 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota, Vizianagaram District. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed M.C.No.27 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner herein opposed the same on the ground that the respondent No.1 is not his legally married wife and he is getting net salary of only Rs.6,000/- per month after deductions and the petitioner No.1 therein is owning property and she has sold Ac.2.00 of land for Rs.7,00,000/- and she is doing money lending business and earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month. To establish the respective contentions on behalf of the petitioners therein, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23. On behalf of the respondent therein, he examined himself as R.W.1 and also examined Ganta Satyanarayana R.W.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.7. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota found that the 1st petitioner and respondent therein were living as wife and husband and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were born to the 1st petitioner through the respondent therein and respondent is getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and even though the respondent has marked Exs.R.1 to R.7 showing the property in the name of the 1st petitioner, but as he could not establish the income derived from the said property, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.1,500/- per month each to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner herein, who is respondent before the lower Court has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram and the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram has dismissed the said revision petition and confirmed the Orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. 5. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota is just and proper in the circumstances of the case? P O I N T: 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is only getting an income of Rs.9,000/- per month and whereas the 1st respondent is having immovable property as per Exs.R.1 to R.7, as such the maintenance awarded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota is highly excessive. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pleaded that the respondent No.2 is studying B.Tech., and the respondent No.3 is studying 9th class and they required minimum Rs.1,500/- per month towards their education and since the 1st respondent has no source of income out of the said property standing in her name, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota has rightly awarded the maintenance. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota and the learned Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, have rightly give a finding that the petitioner herein is getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month as admitted by him and respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are not getting any income out of the property covered by Exs.R.1 to R.7. There is no material placed before the Court to show that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are getting income out of the property covered by Exs.R.1 to R.7 or the findings given by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota, are not based on the record. Since the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not getting any income out of the property owned by them, whereas the petitioner herein is getting salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota has rightly awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner therein and Rs.1,500/- per month each to the petitioners 2 and 3 therein and the said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for quashing of the Orders as prayed for. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 31st March, 2011 KSP