THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4254 and 5076 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: As the point involved in these two petitions is the same, both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in Maintenance Case. 3. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.5076 of 2007 and her two daughters i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3 in both the Criminal Petitions, filed M.C.No.56 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, seeking maintenance from the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4254 of 2007. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, by order dated 22.11.2006, while refusing to award maintenance to the wife, awarded maintenance to the daughters @ Rs.1,000/- per month each from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife and children filed Crl.R.P.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, wherein the reliefs sought for, as per the wife and children, are that the wife is also entitled for maintenance and her two daughters are entitled for maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month each from the date of the petition, but not from the date of the order. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, by order dated 27.04.2007, while awarding maintenance to the children @ Rs.1,000/- per month each from the date of the petition, refused to award any maintenance to the wife and, thus, confirmed the order passed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru. As against the said order, the husband filed Crl.P.No.4254 of 2007 and the wife, as she was denied maintenance, filed Crl.P.No.5076 of 2007. 4. Heard both sides. 5. As it was observed by both the Courts below that the wife is leading adulterous life and is thus not entitled for maintenance, this Court is also of the view that she is not entitled for maintenance. However, so far as the finding that the children i.e. the two daughters are entitled for maintenance from the date of the petition is concerned, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding. 6. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. ________________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 14th June 2010 CVRK