HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 1532 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner’s counsel is absent today also in spite of the matter being listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. There is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue this revision petition. 2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who is husband of the 1st respondent and father of the minor 2nd respondent, questioning order dated 27-7-2010 passed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadepalligudem in MC No. 47 of 2005 granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 under Section125 Cr.P.C. 3. There is no dispute with regard to relationship between the parties. There is also no dispute that both the parties are living separately from each other. Admittedly, the petitioner filed OP for divorce against the 1st respondent in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru and it was dismissed. Therefore, there is no possibility of reunion between the parties. The petitioner is not paying any maintenance to the respondents 1 and 2. He has been neglecting to maintain the respondents 1 and 2. Simply because parents of the 1st respondent are affluent, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent is not entitled for maintenance. There is no proof to show that the 1st respondent is working as a teacher in any school and is earning any salary, muchless since prior to separation between the parties. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is having Ac.7.00 of land, house property and other properties and is getting income of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the petitioner is also working as an Assistant in Cinema field and is earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents 1 and 2 filed Ex.P1 copy of the Settlement Register showing extent of properties owned by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no means to maintain the respondents 1 and 2. Having regard to all these circumstances of the case, the lower court rightly granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2 each from the petitioner. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. 4. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. -09-09-2010 Mjl/*