IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.670 OF 2010 & 1492 OF 2010 Between: Kareti Venkataratnam … PETITIONER And 1. Kum. Kasreti Sravai 2. Kum. Kareti Geetika 3. The State of A.P. … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.670 OF 2010 & 1492 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioner who is father of the respondents 1 and 2/minor daughters filed these two revision petitions, one against the ex parte order dated 07.07.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijyawada, in M.C.No.183 of 2005, granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to each of the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of filing of the petition; and the second one against order dated 09.03.2010, passed by the same Court issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for non-payment of total maintenance amount of Rs.1,74,967/-. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that order passed by the lower Court in M.C.No.183 of 2005 is an ex parte order and that opportunity may be given to him to contest the same. Even though the maintenance case was filed in the year 2005, the petitioner was able to drag it on till the year 2009 and ultimately shied away from the Court resulting in passing ex parte order of maintenance. The lower Court granted maintenance of only Rs.2,000/- per month to each of the minor daughters even though the claim was something above. The petitioner is a railway employee getting salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. It is contended that after deductions, the petitioner is getting net salary of only Rs.3,000/- per month. The petitioner’s wife is not claiming any maintenance since she is already employed. The maintenance is being claimed only by two minor daughters who are students. The petitioner is not maintaining them as they are not in his custody. The petitioner did not take any steps for custody of the minor daughters. So, the petitioner cannot avoid paying maintenance to his minor daughters. Having regard to his salary and other properties held by him, amount of maintenance granted by the lower Court at RS.2,000/- per month to each of the respondents 1 and 2 is not in any way excessive. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in Crl.M.P.No.536 of 2009 in M.C.No.183 of 2005, the lower Court illegally issued non-bailable warrant against him even without notice to him. Section 128 Cr.P.C. and the scheme of provisions under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. do not contemplate issue of any notice to the petitioner before passing an order of enforcement under Section 128 Cr.P.C. It is not as if the petitioner is going to be kept in prison after execution of non-bailable warrant. The moment he pays the arrears of maintenance, he will be set at liberty honourably. It is only as a measure of coercion against the petitioner to obey order of maintenance, non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that orders passed by the lower Court in M.C.No.183 of 2005 as well as in Crl.M.P.No.536 of 2009 are not at all illegal and do not suffer from any infirmity. 4. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. However, six weeks’ time is granted for payment of arrears of maintenance. ______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 04, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.670 OF 2010 & 1492 OF 2010 August 04, 2010