IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10770 of 2009 DATE: 29.09.2010 Between: K.Ramachandrudu …… Petitioner And: State rep. By the Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10770 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is husband of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent filed M.C. No.24 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Adoni under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance. After due enquiry, the Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the 2nd respondent from the petitioner from the date of pronouncement of order. As against the said order, both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent filed two revision petitions before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Adoni in Crl.Rev.Petition No.55 of 2008 and 67 of 2008. The revisional Court dismissed Crl.Rev.Petition No.55 of 2008 filed by the husband and partly allowed Crl.Rev.Petition No.67 of 2008 filed by the wife increasing maintenance amount from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and directing payment of maintenance at that rate from the date of filing of petition before the Magistrate instead of date of order of the Magistrate. As against the common order, the husband filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this petition, this Court cannot consider factual disputes between the parties. 2) The grievance of the petitioner herein is regarding enhancement of rate of maintenance and direction to pay maintenance amount from the date of petition. Admittedly there was no interim maintenance granted by the Magistrate. Therefore, the Magistrate should have ordered payment of maintenance amount to the wife from the date of filing of the petition and not from the date of pronouncement of the order. No reasons are given by the Magistrate for not doing so. Further, in so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, the petitioner is working as Manager in Dena Bank. It is contended that his total salary is Rs.22,976/- and that he has to pay housing loan of Rs.4,900/- per month. Having regard to status of the parties and capability of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month granted by the Revisional Court is no way excessive or onerous on the petitioner. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 3) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 29, 2010 KSH