THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7606 of 2009 DATED:18.09.2009 Between: Bandi Iylaiah .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7606 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of on admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal on 31.07.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.1976 of 2009 in M.C.No.24 of 2007 issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner on payment of process by the second respondent herein as the balance amount was not paid and as the petition for condonation of his absence was dismissed. The petitioner contends in this Criminal Petition that he filed Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2008 questioning the validity of the order passed in M.C.No.24 of 2007, which is still pending adjudication. But it is not claimed that there is any interim order pending the Revision Petition, which disables the second respondent from enforcing the order of maintenance. It was only claimed that by the interim order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Warangal on 18.12.2008 pending Crl.R.P.No.49 of 2008, the maintenance awarded by the trial Court was reduced to Rs.1,500/- from Rs.3,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the second respondent is entitled to enforce the said order of maintenance to the extent of Rs.1,500/- per month even pending the Criminal Revision Petition. The claim of the petitioner that he is a poor person and not in a position to pay the maintenance amount to the second respondent is not a question which can be agitated in this Criminal Petition arising out of an order passed in the petition for enforcement of the order for maintenance and whether the second respondent will gain anything or not by any orders passed by the learned Magistrate in the enforcement petition is not a relevant question for determination. If the second respondent is entitled to the enforcement of the order of maintenance and if the entertainment of the petition and the orders passed therein are not in violation of Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other provision or principle of law, then there is absolutely no warrant for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases and which has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th September 2009 KH