IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.399 OF 2009 Between: Nallaboina Shobhana Chalam … PETITIONER And The State of Andhra Pradesh and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.399 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is husband of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed D.V.C.No.16 of 2007 before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, against the petitioner and two others under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate after enquiry directed 1) the respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein, who are the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, not to cause any sort of violence towards the respondent No.2 and her children, 2) the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 and her two children each, totaling Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance, 3) the petitioner to pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent for shelter of the respondent No.2 and 4) the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages to the respondent No.2 and her children. As against the said order, the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed Crl.A.No.243 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada. The Sessions Judge by order, dated 20.09.2008, modified the order of the Magistrate directing the petitioner alone to pay Rs.500/- per month each to the respondent No.2 and her two children, totaling Rs.1,500/- per month and pay another sum of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent No.2 towards rent for her shelter. The lower appellate Court set aside the order relating to payment of damages. Now the petitioner filed this revision petition questioning the same. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the respondent No.2 is entitled for maintenance and shelter to her as well as to her two minor children, after assessing evidence on record. This Court in this revision petition cannot re-assess evidence on record. The amounts granted to the respondent No.2 and her two children are bare minimum. I do not find any material to disturb the quantum of maintenance and rent fixed by the lower appellate Court. 2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 26, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.399 OF 2009 July 26, 2010