THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1337 of 2009 Dated: 27th August, 2009 Between: Gunnala Rajanna …Petitioner and 1. Smt.Gunnala Sayavva and another. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1337 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 31.10.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1044 of 2008 in MC No.21 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal. The petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent/wife filed M.C.No.21 of 2006 claiming maintenance. She also moved Crl.M.P.No.1543 of 2006 seeking interim maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, granted interim maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. by order dated 05.10.2007. The wife sought for execution of the order of interim maintenance. The learned Magistrate proceeded to issue warrant of attachment of salary of the husband to an extent of Rs.2,000/- p.m. for a period of 24 months. The said order is assailed in this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/wife. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the petitioner got remarried after the 1st respondent/wife divorcing him. A further submission has been made that the income the petitioner earns is hardly sufficient to maintain himself, his 2nd wife and children and therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount to the 1st respondent/wife. 4. The maintenance case filed by the 1st respondent/wife is pending adjudication. What is granted by the learned Magistrate is interim maintenance to the 1st respondent/wife. Consequent on failure of the petitioner to pay the interim maintenance, an order of attachment came to be issued on 19.08.2008. Indisputably, there is no dissolution of the marriage between the parties through process of law. Since the petitioner contacted 2nd marriage during subsistence of his marriage with the 1st respondent/wife, the 1st respondent/wife is entitled to claim separate residence. In that view of the matter, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:27th August, 2009. cs